BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

City of Westminster Bill [ Lords]

Lords message (25 November) relating to the Bill considered.
	 Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.-( The Chairman of Ways and Means .)

Transport for London (Supplemental Toll Provisions) BILL [ Lords]

Lords message (25 November) relating to the Bill considered.
	 Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords in their Resolution.-( The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked-

Cyprus

Simon Hughes: What steps he is taking to support the talks aimed at bringing a resolution to the situation in Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Bryant: The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary recently met President Christofias to reaffirm our support for the settlement process, and I met both leaders in Cyprus last week. The UK has also written to the United Nations offering to cede approximately half the sovereign base area land for incorporation into a reunited island, should there be a final agreement.

Simon Hughes: The House and others will be grateful both for the Government's continuing interest and for the Minister's specific commitment to this issue. Given that many people believe that the best chance in the near future of a peaceful settlement remains while President Christofias is President of Cyprus and Mr. Talat is the President in the self-declared northern republic, what do the Government plan to do at the European Council later this month to try to move things on, and what other pressure can be exerted to try to ensure that the next few months are not yet another wasted opportunity?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is a unique opportunity given that the leaders in each community have staked their political careers on desiring and willing a settlement. I saw the buffer zone last week, and it must seem to any sane person a disgrace that we still have a divided capital city in Europe, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin wall. We are determined to do everything that we can. We think that it is important that Turkey adheres to and complies with what it has said that it would do under the Ankara protocol. It is also important that Turkey continues further along the route towards accession to the European Union. Perhaps the motto that might best serve the talks at the moment is the words of Sheridan, the first Under-Secretary in the Foreign Office, when he said:
	"The surest way to fail is not to determine to succeed."
	We should determine to succeed.

David Lepper: I thank my hon. Friend for the support that the UK Government have given to the efforts to determine the whereabouts of people on both sides who have been missing since the Turkish invasion of 1974. Will he put additional pressure on the Turkish Government to reveal more information about the possible whereabouts of the remains of those missing people?

Chris Bryant: Last week, when I met the Committee on Missing Persons, it was one of the most distressing parts of my visit, as it must be for anyone who goes to Cyprus, to see so many cadavers laid out and to know that many more are missing. Their families have no sense of closure about what happened so many years ago. We will continue to put pressure on all those involved to ensure that any information that is out there can be made available to the organisation. However, it is probably going to have to speed up its work as the further we get away from those events, the more difficult it is to find answers to what happened.

Mark Francois: Like the Minister, I too have visited Cyprus this year and we would all like to see progress towards a lasting settlement. He mentioned the buffer zone. Given the vital need to maintain public support for the process on both sides, does he believe that there is now scope for further confidence-building measures such as opening extra border crossings, to try to demonstrate to people across the island that real progress is being made and a settlement is yet possible?

Chris Bryant: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the more confidence-building measures can be put in place, the greater the likelihood of maintaining political support for the talks and for any eventual solution. My own feeling of optimism rose dramatically when I spoke to the individual leaders who are actively involved in the talks, but sometimes when I spoke to the media my optimism plummeted. Sometimes the media in Cyprus are overly sceptical and cynical about the process. I think that there is significant progress being made and it is important that agreement has been reached to intensify the talks in the new year.

Afghanistan

Bernard Jenkin: What progress is being made towards holding a conference on future policy on Afghanistan in January 2010 as proposed by the Prime Minister in his Guildhall speech?

David Miliband: The London conference on Afghanistan will be held on 28 January 2010. The purpose is to mobilise international efforts in support of a combined military and political strategy in Afghanistan. In addition to the Government of Afghanistan, partners in the international security assistance force, Afghanistan's immediate neighbours and international institutions are being invited.

Bernard Jenkin: What is the objective political end state that the allies are seeking to achieve in Afghanistan?

David Miliband: The shared objective across the international community is an Afghan Government and security forces that are able to defend themselves from being overrun by a Taliban misrule that would eventually become a safe space for al-Qaeda. To make that possible, we need to wage a genuine counter-insurgency struggle on both sides of the Durand line-in both Afghanistan and Pakistan-in partnership with the Afghan Government and the Pakistani Government.

Michael Clapham: Is the conference likely to discuss the prospect of a high commissioner for Afghanistan? What is his view on the current campaign against Kai Eide, the head of the UN mission in Afghanistan? Is that campaign likely to have a negative impact on politics in Afghanistan?

David Miliband: Kai Eide is the UN special representative in Afghanistan and has a very important role at the head of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan. There will be mourning across the House for the loss of UN staff in Afghanistan, a number of whom were killed in a terrible incident last month. That civilian leadership from the UN is very important, and I think that Kai Eide has done his work in a professional and appropriate manner.
	I spoke to Kai Eide when I was in Kabul last week and emphasised to him our continued commitment not just to the role of the UN, but to his leadership. Obviously, it is up to him how long he goes beyond his two-year mandate for which he was appointed. I also point out to right hon. and hon. Members that there is an important civilian role in the international security assistance force-NATO has nominated a civilian to play a role in ISAF to ensure that the latter's operations are linked properly to the civilian side. In that sense, it is important that civilian leadership is provided both through the UN and in ISAF in Afghanistan.

Menzies Campbell: If, by the time that the conference is held, it has become clear that President Karzai is unwilling, or unable, to fulfil his obligations, will the conference be able to accept and embrace a provincial, rather than a national strategy to prevent President Karzai from being an obstacle to progress?

David Miliband: Since the Prime Minister's statement at the Dispatch Box in December 2007, the importance of the local governance agenda in Afghanistan-not just at the provincial level, through the 34 provinces, but at the district level, through the 394 districts-has been at the centre of the Government's work.
	I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that Afghanistan is a country of some 40,000 villages and has rarely been governed from Kabul; it has been governed by local tribal structures. That is why it has been at the heart of the endeavours of the Government and the international community to ensure that, as well as forging the appropriate partnership in Kabul, we strengthen, wherever possible, local governance-that means provincial and district governance-and that remains our commitment.

Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, at the start of the conflict, considerable attention was given to the situation of women in Afghanistan. According to the report from the UN high commissioner for human rights, she is concerned that the Afghan Government do not seem to be giving enough attention to the protection of women. What can we do in this conference to bring the situation of women to the fore of the agenda again?

David Miliband: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. At every stage, we should be stressing our commitment to the constitution of Afghanistan, which gives equal rights to all its citizens and should provide the ring within which any former insurgents are willing to return to the political system. The constitution of Afghanistan should be the benchmark by which all Afghan Governments and international partners are held to account.

Keith Simpson: Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced a series of benchmarks for the Afghan Government, including that all 400 provinces and districts must appoint a governor free of corruption within nine months. We assume that when the conference takes place on 28 January, President Karzai will be held to those benchmarks, but will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how they will be monitored, how "free from corruption" will be determined, and by whom, and what penalties there will be if the various deadlines that the Prime Minister laid down have not been met?

Mr. Speaker: I say to the Foreign Secretary that there were three questions there, but that one answer will suffice.

David Miliband: The answer is that, by definition, the conference is in two months, and even the timeline to which the hon. Gentleman referred is nine months. Of those benchmarks, the 34 provincial governor appointments are, of course, key, and it is well understood, within Afghanistan and internationally, what constitutes fair and effective governance. I stress that that also applies at district level, which he mentioned. At each stage, whether in respect of police or army training, or gubernatorial appointments, the international community will take a collective view, as will the people of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan-Pakistan

Ann Winterton: What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area.

David Miliband: The Afghanistan-Pakistan border region is ungoverned, unstable and a haven for terrorist and militant groups, including al-Qaeda. Countering that threat needs the Afghan and Pakistani Governments to work within their own jurisdiction and, crucially, together on their shared problems of terrorist activity, narcotics and weapons trafficking and limited economic opportunities. We continue to encourage such collaboration and make our contribution to the international effort to support effective counter-insurgency in both countries and on both sides of the border.

Ann Winterton: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most deep-rooted problems is the unrecognised Durand line, which is as critical today as it was in 1893, when it split the tribal areas, which the Afghans called Yaghistan, the land of the unruly? How can we now expect Pakistan to sort out that border, which is the legacy of a colonial past?

David Miliband: The hon. Lady will know that there are many legacies of the colonial past, not least on the Pakistan side of the border, where the Frontier Crimes Regulation of 1903 remains the basis of the legal system and political parties continue to be banned 61 years after independence. Although I know what she means when she says that the Durand line is unrecognised, in fact it is recognised by everyone, but also disputed by everyone, so it is a disputed line rather than an unrecognised line. I hope that she will agree with me that the issue today is not redrawing the Durand line, which would not be a source of progress anywhere; rather, what both sides of the border need is the sort of stability that can come from effective institutions, and not just military institutions, but political and economic institutions ones. Sadly, they have been lacking for too long on both sides of the border.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Foreign Secretary made reference just now to our contribution to counter-insurgency, as did the Prime Minister yesterday. Can he tell the House whether a D notice was in existence prior to yesterday's announcement by the Prime Minister of the numbers of special forces deployed to the region and if so, why it was in existence before that statement and why it was no longer necessary after it?

David Miliband: To make sure that there are absolutely no mistakes in this often tangled territory, I will write to my hon. Friend with an answer to his question and ensure that there is a full understanding in all parts of the House.

Keith Simpson: Let us try one question for the Foreign Secretary. Is he confident that the Pakistan army and, in particular, the intelligence services are prepared fully to undertake their commitments in dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda?

David Miliband: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that even when he says "the Taliban", he sets out the complexity of the situation. He will know better than I that the Pakistani authorities, including the Government and Inter-Services Intelligence, are absolutely clear about their obligations to take on the Pakistan Taliban. The argument that is happening is about the Pakistani authorities' responsibilities in respect of the so-called Afghan Taliban. The distinction has been strongly drawn in Pakistan between those groups that are dedicated to the overthrow of the Pakistani state, relative to those other groups that are a threat to our troops and to those on the Afghan side of the border. Our argument-or, most recently, my discussion with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan at the Commonwealth conference on Friday-was to say that the multiple insurgencies that threaten Pakistan need to be addressed together. He understood that point, but he also made the fair point that, for public opinion in Pakistan, the first priority is to get a grip on the various organisations-not just the Pakistan Taliban, but Lashkar-e-Taiba, which we discussed in the House during the debate on the Queen's Speech. That remains the case, but from our point of view, it is essential that the Pakistani authorities address the multiple insurgencies that provide a home for al-Qaeda, as the Prime Minister said yesterday.

Denis MacShane: But is not the political situation worsened by the propaganda that argues that the west is fundamentally anti-Muslim? That was not helped by the Swiss referendum result on Sunday or the unfortunate intervention by the Leader of the Opposition last week, for which he graciously apologised. Can my right hon. Friend find an opportunity to make a speech insisting that Britain is not an anti-Muslim nation? We have to keep stressing that in order to make it clear.

David Miliband: I hope that my right hon. Friend will look back at the speech that I made in May at the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, in which I addressed that issue among many others. It is a complete calumny to suggest that anyone in this House sees the war in Afghanistan as part of an anti-Muslim effort of any kind whatever-certainly no one in the Government believes that, and I do not believe it to be the case in any part of the House.
	I do think, though, that it is very important to continue to emphasise that the vast majority of Afghans, Muslims as they are, do not want to side with the Taliban and do not want to go back to Taliban misrule. The greatest resource we have in the counter-insurgency in Afghanistan is the fact that the Afghan people do not want to go back to the 1990s-and nor do we.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Question 5, Mr. Speaker.

Chris Bryant: Reform of the EU budget has not been discussed recently at the General Affairs and External Relations Council-

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister was seeking a grouping.

Chris Bryant: I apologise.

EU Budget Reform

David Heathcoat-Amory: What recent discussions he has had in the General Affairs Council on reform of the EU budget.

Philip Davies: What recent discussions he has had in the General Affairs Council on reform of the EU budget.

Chris Bryant: As I was saying before I was interrupted- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know the hon. Gentleman will accept that my interruption was both necessary and helpful.

Chris Bryant: And they are getting more necessary and more helpful, Mr. Speaker.
	Reform of the EU budget has not been discussed recently at the General Affairs and External Relations Council. The Government remain committed to far-reaching reform of the EU budget, refocusing it on jobs and growth, driving the transition to a low-carbon economy, tackling climate change and ensuring security, stability and poverty reduction.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Lisbon treaty was sold to us on the basis that it would make matters simpler and also more efficient. Why, then, has the European Scrutiny Committee just been told of a supplementary bid for next year's budget of another £22 million to pay for additional European Council events, for the salary entitlements and travel costs of the new President of the Council, for another 50 posts and for more media coverage and medical expenses? Why have-

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have got the gist and that is quite long enough.

Chris Bryant: The right hon. former Minister for Europe knows perfectly well the process that operates-that the European Parliament makes its bid every year for its budget for next year; that is precisely the process that we are going through at the moment.

Philip Davies: Given that the accounts of the EU have not been signed off by the auditors for 15 years running, why do the Government keep giving more and more money to the EU? Surely if the Government are serious about reform of the EU budget, they should say that the EU will not get a penny more from the British Government until it gets its accounts properly audited.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if we were to follow his policy, which is to get out of the EU, it would significantly harm British interests. He knows perfectly well, too, that, as the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, David Frost said only a few weeks ago: "Business", by which he meant British business,
	"wants a pragmatic approach to the EU, not an ideological one"
	such as the hon. Gentleman's.

David Taylor: The EU estimates its costs to the UK at £15 per person a year, while the Europhobic  Daily Express assesses it as £250 per family a year and the TaxPayers Alliance-the Tory party agitators of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)-put it at an astonishing £2,000 per person a year. Which of these figures remotely resembles the truth?

Chris Bryant: None of those figures remotely represents the truth. The truth of the matter is that if Britain were to leave the EU, the cost in terms of jobs, the cost in terms of business opportunities and the costs in terms of trade would be phenomenal to every single family in this country.

Tom Watson: Does the Minister agree with the General Affairs Council committing resources to negotiating a new trade deal with Colombia, when the Government of Colombia are allowing the extra judicial slaughter of dozens of trade unionists?

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a very serious human rights situation in Colombia. He knows, I think, that I have visited the country and I think he may be about to visit it himself. This is an issue that I raised directly with the President, Mr. Uribe. In moving forward to any trade deal with Peru and Colombia, I think it right not only to address the issue of Scotch whisky but also to ensure that there are robust and enforceable human rights clauses in place.

Mark Francois: In December 2005, this Government cut Britain's originally non-negotiable EU rebate by £7 billion in return for a vague promise of a review of the EU budget that has not yet been delivered. Some four years on, can the Minister say when the European Commission's communication setting out proposals for budget reform will formally be published?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is completely and utterly wrong. The main reason why we reached the negotiated settlement that we reached at the time was that not only did we believe that enlargement was right and proper for the European Union and good for British interests, but we were prepared to pay the price of that enlargement, as were several other countries. The hon. Gentleman often wants to will the ends, but never the means.

Mark Francois: The former Prime Minister came back to the House and said that he would negotiate a deal on the basis of budget reform. We were here, and we remember it. In view of the lamentable negotiating performance by the present Government, and the French President's ability to claim just last week that the British were big losers from the recent EU summit, does the Minister now understand why people in this country no longer believe that the Government are capable of securing our financial or economic interests in the European Union?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman talks of influence in the European Union. What influence can you have when you have absconded from the main European groupings in the European Parliament, when you are not able to secure a single European Commissioner for your grouping, and when you are not able to secure a single vice-president in the European Parliament?
	As for the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, when 12 portfolios on financial and economic issues that were important to Britain were handed out, not a single Conservative Member of Parliament was given one of those portfolios, but two were given to the Labour party. So the hon. Gentleman cannot talk about influence in Europe.

Falkland Islands

Philip Hollobone: What recent representations he has received on international recognition of the Falkland Islands as a United Kingdom overseas territory.

Chris Bryant: The Government have no doubt about their sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. The principle of self-determination underlies that. Nevertheless, Argentina unfortunately continues to make regular representations on its supposed claim to sovereignty.

Philip Hollobone: It is in the best interests of Britain and the Falkland Islands for there to be as much international support as possible for the present status of the islands. In that context, how many members of the United Nations-there are 192 of them-recognise the islanders' right to self-determination, and their choice that the islands should be a United Kingdom overseas territory?

Chris Bryant: That is fundamentally recognised throughout the international community. We constantly make representations to those who want to question the issue, but I have absolutely no doubt about the position in the Falkland Islands. It is good that next-of-kin visits from Argentina have been possible, and we seek good relations with Argentina, but not on the basis of discussing sovereignty.

Meg Munn: As my right hon. Friend will know, next of kin of those who died on both sides in the Falklands war have always been able to visit the graves, but there were difficulties over a larger visit following the 25th anniversary of the conflict. Is he able to update the House?

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue of next-of-kin visits. There was a substantial visit recently, and I pay tribute to all on the Falkland Islands who made it possible for that to happen with dignity and true respect for those who had died on both sides of the conflict. I know that several Members were able to play in a rugby match against members of the Argentine congress, and that the Argentine team was led by someone who had fought for the Argentines in the Falkland Islands. I believe that the respect between the two countries is intimate.

Afghanistan

Eric Illsley: What is his latest assessment of the political situation in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

Malcolm Rifkind: What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

David Miliband: I refer my hon. Friend and the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the Prime Minister's statement to the House yesterday. President Karzai was inaugurated on 19 November, and we await the formation of his Cabinet. The international community needs to work with the Afghan Government to make progress on the five issues that were identified as priorities in President Karzai's inauguration speech.

Eric Illsley: Does not the suggestion of a United States high representative or chief executive to work alongside President Karzai somewhat undermine his already fragile legitimacy? If and when that proposal becomes a reality, will the British Government support it?

David Miliband: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to the international civilian leadership or the idea that there should be a reformed administrative structure inside President Karzai's office. The discussion that I have heard in the past is of Afghans filling those roles, rather than Americans or others. I will certainly follow up the report my hon. Friend is concerned about, but the idea that Afghanistan should be run by the Afghans, and the sooner the better, has always been at the heart of our approach.

Malcolm Rifkind: Notwithstanding the increasing attention being given by both President Obama and the Prime Minister to an exit strategy for NATO forces, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, even when NATO ground forces are completely withdrawn, it will continue to be necessary to provide NATO air support to the Afghan Government, probably for the foreseeable future? Is it not the case that just as it was a combination of NATO air power and Afghan ground forces that drove the Taliban out in the first place, so it will be that same combination that will keep them out of power in the future?

David Miliband: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. At present, in most parts of the country the Afghan forces are being trained by international forces, and international forces are having to undertake leadership in combat operations. We very much hope that, in line with President Karzai's commitment, within five years all provinces in the country will follow Kabul in having Afghan security leadership. However, that will not mean the end of international support for the Afghan forces and of air support of the kind the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes, and the so-called overwatch role that was developed for the circumstances of Iraq will remain an issue beyond that date. It is important, however, to signal the current priority, which is to transfer the leadership of combat operations to the Afghan forces.

Geoffrey Robinson: My right hon. Friend referred to international civilian leadership and the importance of strengthening that if we are to succeed in our overall goals, and the Prime Minister said yesterday that that would be a major topic at the London conference. Will the Government consider strengthening it through the important means of co-ordinating its efforts, and perhaps even, temporarily, through the integration of its efforts with those of General McChrystal on the military front?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, civilian-military co-ordination is essential in provincial reconstruction teams around Afghanistan. In Helmand province, where most of the British forces are, there is a combined military and civilian team, being led, as it happens, by an official from the Department for International Development, previously an official from the Foreign Office. That sort of integration of, and co-operation between, the military and civilian sides of the effort is essential, and I hope we see it being replicated at national level. The two roles of the head of the United Nations and the NATO representative in ISAF will be critical to achieving that.

Edward Davey: The Prime Minister talked yesterday about political reforms to produce governors appointed on merit and free from corruption. Is it envisaged that the process to achieve that will involve removing existing governors, and is it also envisaged that the new governors will ever acquire any political legitimacy of their own, other than being appointees of President Karzai?

David Miliband: In my experience of travelling to Afghanistan and talking to people there and of studying the situation in that country, the credibility of the governors at provincial and district level comes from the work they do and the way they do it. Those governors who have shown themselves to be dedicated to the interests of the people of their province have won widespread support, significantly through community councils, but also through other ways of engaging with the local population. In this case, therefore, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The governors who perform well, gain confidence; those who turn out to be placemen, or to be in it for their own interests, quickly lose the confidence of both Afghans and the international community.

Edward Davey: I hope some of the governors currently in post will be removed during that political reform process, but how does the Foreign Secretary see the much needed process of reconciliation and reintegration working at district and local level? Will it be organised by these new governors, and will the ISAF coalition fund such Afghan-led reconciliation work at the local level?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We talk about reintegration at local level. Reintegration is for the middle and high-level commanders, and at the local level it will need to be Afghan-led and internationally supported. There will be different ways of arranging it in different parts of the country-sometimes at district level, at other times, where a larger reintegration needs to be achieved, at provincial level. One important point worth making to the House is that the reintegration effort only succeeds when the other side of the coin is a military and security effort, first because those in the insurgency need to know the risk that is carried by continuing the insurgency, but also because they need to know they will be properly protected if they come within the constitutional set-up.

David Crausby: We have been in Afghanistan long enough to know where every poppy field is, so can my right hon. Friend tell me when we will put an end to the vile trade in heroin, which does so much damage in Afghanistan and on the streets of Britain?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will be pleased, as I am, that the past two years' poppy crop has been significantly down; I stand to be corrected, but I believe that there has been a 30 per cent. fall and then a 22 per cent. fall, and that the number of poppy-free districts has increased to 21. He will be as concerned as I am at the high level of poppy production that remains. Our experience is that there are two key factors to turning this round, the first of which is security-because poppy production is the product of insecurity-and the second of which is a decent economic price for licit production, notably of wheat.

Middle East (Nuclear Proliferation)

David Jones: What recent assessment he has made of the levels of nuclear proliferation in the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

Ivan Lewis: The prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran remains the most immediate proliferation threat to the middle east. Iran needs to co-operate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency and comply with five United Nations Security Council resolutions calling for it to suspend its enrichment programme.

David Jones: Iran's announcement that it intends to build another 10 uranium enrichment plants may or may not be mere posturing, but in any event, it amounts to provocative defiance of the will of the international community, as expressed in the IAEA resolution. At what point does the Minister consider that economic sanctions against Iran will become inevitable?

Ivan Lewis: First, we should not be distracted by the announcement made this week. The issue is that after six years of engagement and five UN Security Council resolutions Iran has still refused to comply with its responsibilities under international law. What has been agreed by the international community is that there will be a meeting of officials of the E3 plus 3 this month, an assessment will be made of the engagement strategy so far, and at that time an appropriate judgment will be made about the next stage. What is clear is that the international community will not tolerate Iran developing nuclear weapons. Not only is that a threat to the stability of the middle east, but it would also trigger an arms race in that region, which would have no limit.

Andrew Gwynne: But what representations has my hon. Friend made to the newly appointed European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy to ensure that, as is crucial, a single voice comes out of the European Union against the Iranian uranium enrichment policy?

Ivan Lewis: My hon. Friend is right to make the point that we need the EU speaking with one clear, loud voice and making it clear to Iran that we stand together on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will meet the new High Representative this week to that end.

David Lidington: The IAEA director general has said:
	"We have effectively reached a dead end"
	on Iran. Given that, does the Minister agree that we need to be talking about a new UN Security Council resolution, which should include a total ban on arms sales to Iran, a tough UN inspections regime and action against the Iranian Islamic revolutionary guard corps, which is deeply involved in Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes?

Ivan Lewis: What is important is that it is absolutely clear that despite the international community's reaching out a hand towards Iran, requesting diplomatic engagement and saying that we want a political solution, and despite the speech in which the new President of the United States made those points, Iran has still refused to engage: for more than a year, it has not engaged with the UN's nuclear watchdog in any way. If, at this stage of reappraisal, the best way forward is found to be a United Nations resolution about further sanctions against Iran, we will take that view seriously.

Gisela Stuart: It is clear that Iran has not listened to anything that anybody has said for the past six years and is proceeding irrespective of any representations made, so talk of further sanctions is really neither here nor there. However, may I press the Minister a little further? Having P3 and E3, and talking to the new High Representative, is still not a proper European position. Will he say exactly how the three E3 countries-Germany, France and the United Kingdom-intend to work with the rest of the European Union and the new High Representative to bring some clout to the table?

Ivan Lewis: The General Affairs Council is due to meet next week. There will be an attempt to get complete EU unity on this issue, so that we can go forward to the December E3 plus 3 meeting with a common EU position. We will then consider the case for a UN Security Council resolution.

Middle East Peace Process

Andrew Selous: What his most recent assessment is of progress in the middle east peace process.

David Miliband: There is more consensus in the international community than there has been for many years about the basis for a resolution of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, but the parties are moving further apart. Those Palestinians and Israelis who are committed to the idea of a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the shared capital and a fair settlement for refugees, appear smaller in number and weaker in politics than ever before. However, the US Administration are engaged in a good-faith endeavour to bridge the gap. We will continue to support those efforts, because the alternatives for the people of Israel, Palestine and the rest of the region look so much worse.

Andrew Selous: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree that education and hope for the future are important for peace in the middle east so, to that end, may I ask him to have a word with his Israeli counterpart about the 8,000 desks that the UN has imported into Gaza for schoolchildren? They cannot be assembled because the Israelis will not let the nails come in. Will he commit to have a word on that subject?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and I shall certainly raise it. We have raised many issues over the past year-or certainly since January and the end of Operation Cast Lead-about the grip that exists at the checkpoints, in terms of both the volume of trade and the items that are allowed in. I have never heard that item referred to before, but the hon. Gentleman raises a very important point and I shall certainly follow it up.

Louise Ellman: What lessons does my right hon. Friend draw from Iran's recent attempt to send 500 tonnes of weapons to Hezbollah? The weapons were disguised as civilian cargo, and some of them as construction materials, but thankfully the attempt was intercepted and thwarted by the Israelis.

David Miliband: We must learn two lessons. The first is that we must never underestimate the extent to which some will go to get further weapons into Gaza, and the second is that we must follow up every aspect of resolution 1860- [ Interruption. ] I beg my hon. Friend's pardon: she referred to Hezbollah and not to Gaza. We should never underestimate the extent to which some will go to arm terrorist groups all across the region. Secondly, we should not underestimate the extent to which the international community needs to come together to follow through on repeated resolutions, in the UN and elsewhere, to support all states in the region that are committed to coexistence. That is what we will certainly do.

Foreign Prisoner Release

Daniel Kawczynski: If he will hold discussions with the Scottish Executive on co-ordination of policy on release and removal from the country of foreign prisoners held in UK prisons.

Ivan Lewis: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs that no discussions are planned with the Scottish Executive on these issues. The release of any prisoner in the Scottish prison estate is a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive. Deportation of foreign national prisoners remains a reserved matter for the UK Border Agency.

Daniel Kawczynski: What lessons have the Minister and the Government learned from the release of Mr. al-Megrahi to Tripoli? The Government's total silence at the time brought great shame and embarrassment to our country. Will he interact properly with the Scottish Executive in future to ensure that such embarrassments do not happen again?

Ivan Lewis: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House that set out very clearly the terms of the release of al-Megrahi. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, the decision was entirely a matter for the Scottish Executive, and he was not even in the House when my right hon. Friend made his statement.

David Drew: But does my hon. Friend agree that the normal process should be that foreign prisoners who have committed an offence should serve their sentences in their country of origin, unless it would not be safe for them to do so, or their crimes are so unacceptable that they should remain here?

Ivan Lewis: That depends entirely on the nature of the agreements that we have with other countries. The agreements that the Home Office has with other countries vary according to our relationships with those countries, so such decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis.

EU Informal Meeting

Anne McIntosh: What the outcome was of the informal meeting of EU Heads of State or Government on 19 November 2009; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Bryant: The special European Council on 19 November came to unanimous agreement on the appointment of Herman Van Rompuy as the first permanent President of the European Council, and of Baroness Cathy Ashton as the new High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister not regret being outmanoeuvred by our partners on the spurious grounds of gender equality when we could have taken home the prize of one of the most important financial and economic EU Commissioner posts, which would have been of great benefit to the City of London?

Chris Bryant: No. The hon. Lady was a rather more pragmatic and sensible pro-European when she was a Member of the European Parliament. She knows perfectly well that these are good appointments. The appointment of Cathy Ashton as High Representative will be especially good because we need Europe to play a far more effective role on the global stage, and she is a woman who will bring that about. I welcome the appointment of Michel Barnier as the Internal Market Commissioner, and I merely note that the hon. Lady's party wants to dismantle elements of the internal market, which would be wholly inappropriate.

Zimbabwe

Desmond Swayne: What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement.

David Miliband: rose-

Ivan Lewis: rose- [ Laughter. ]

David Miliband: I say to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that you have to be quick in this game. The notes for the reply say that the Minister answering is "Ivan Lewis", so I apologise-but hesitation and deviation are both punished in this House.
	The inclusive Government continue to make progress on economic reform, but we are disappointed by the slow pace of political reform, the spasmodic violence and the continuation of human rights abuses. The Southern African Development Community agreed at its Maputo summit to push for further implementation of the global political agreement in Zimbabwe, but the proof will be in the delivery. We urge all parties, as the Commonwealth did on Sunday, to stick to the agreement and comply with it.

Desmond Swayne: Is it not clear that there can be no real change while Mugabe remains? Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is absolute nonsense to speak of readmission to the Commonwealth while the current situation persists?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman will know that Prime Minister Tsvangirai has committed to the global political agreement, which is a transitional agreement to renewed elections over an 18-month period. The Commonwealth, the British Government and others have said that that all parties must stick to that agreement. If that happens, the future of Zimbabwe can be turned away from the terrible descent into violence and economic chaos into which Mugabe took the country.

Topical Questions

Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

David Miliband: The Commonwealth Heads of Government met in Trinidad and Tobago between 27 and 29 November. The meeting underlined the Commonwealth's strength through its diversity and ability to promote action, and the importance of its core values. We saw strong support for a deal in Copenhagen and agreed a UK proposal for a Copenhagen launch fund, as well on calling on Zimbabwe's coalition partners to respect their commitments and restore democracy and the rule of law. The Commonwealth also agreed to set up an eminent persons group to consider the modernisation of the Commonwealth, including its systems and priorities, to prepare it for the future.

Mike Gapes: Following the overwhelming and welcome vote by the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the subsequent capture and detention of British civilian yacht competitors, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the current state of relations between the UK and Iran?

David Miliband: First, I should say that I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House look forward to the prompt release of the yachtsmen, who were in their yacht between Bahrain and Dubai purely for sporting purposes. The consular case is being pursued in London and Tehran. In the light of my hon. Friend's question, it is important to say that there is no link at all between the position of the yachtsmen and the Iranian nuclear file or other political issues between Iran and the rest of the international community. We very much look forward to the yachtsmen being released on a consular basis. We understand that they are being treated well in Iran, as we would expect. As I said outside the House earlier today, we are working closely with the Iranian Government to ensure that the release happens as quickly as possible.

Andrew Stunell: There are 50,000 Christians displaced in Orissa state, and the Indian Government's compensation scheme appears to have stalled. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what representations he has made to the Indian Government to get the compensation scheme flowing again and the displaced persons resettled?

Ivan Lewis: I can update the hon. Gentleman. The British high commissioner visited Orissa and spoke to the state authorities only a couple of weeks ago specifically about this issue. They advised the high commissioner that the state-run camps have been closed, that affected Christians have now been returned to their homes, that compensation has been provided, and that the perpetrators have been convicted. Of course, we will continue to monitor the situation.

David Taylor: When the world comes together in Copenhagen this weekend for the United Nations climate change conference, will our Government press for an amended and extended Kyoto protocol, with a second commitment period of emission reduction targets for industrialised countries as an absolute priority for those crucial negotiations?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises a very important matter. Every industrialised country must come forward with a binding emissions target, both intermediate and long term. However, one difference between the Kyoto protocol and the Copenhagen agreement is-I hope-that at Copenhagen, every country in the world will make a commitment to ensure that it does not proceed with business as usual. After all, 90 per cent. of the increase in carbon emissions over the next 50 years will come from developing countries rather than industrialised countries. While we cannot expect absolute cuts from many developing countries, we can help them to ensure that they do not proceed on a high-carbon development path.

Edward Timpson: As part of its strategy on child rights published in August 2007, the FCO said that it would work closely with, and continue to consult, the child rights panel
	"to discuss and continuously develop this strategy."
	Will the Secretary of State tell the House when the child rights panel last met, and what plans there are for it to meet again in the near future?

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that child rights are an integral part of British foreign policy objectives. The panel meets on an ad hoc basis when and if necessary. It is true that it has not met for some time. The last time we called a meeting of child rights stakeholders was in July this year to assist our work revising the FCO's children and armed conflict strategy. We want children's rights to become a mainstream integral part of our work, and we will convene that panel when necessary.

Andy Reed: Rwanda has made tremendous progress in the past 15 years, leading to its accession to the Commonwealth at the weekend and today's announcement that it is largely mine-free. What steps can the Government take to consolidate that progress through work with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and by building good governance, not just in Rwanda but across the rest of east Africa, to assist those countries, particularly from the point of view of good governance and of development?

Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is right. We, too, welcome the accession of Rwanda to the Commonwealth. We think that this is an important point at which Rwanda can seize hold of the values and principles to which the Commonwealth adheres, and make them prominent in its constitution and in its way of life. We work closely with the Government in Kigali to try to enforce key messages on media freedom and good governance and to support the national Human Rights Commission, and we will continue to do so.

Andrew Pelling: What has been done to improve further our relations with Japan, particularly with the new Democratic Party of Japan Government? We have many shared interests in international security-the new H-2A rocket has recently been launched by Japan-and we can learn a lot from its experiences in dealing with a low-growth economy.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the importance of our relationship with Japan, particularly given the election of the new Japanese Government. Since that Government were formed, there have been UK ministerial visits to Japan by the Minister with responsibility for defence equipment and support, by the Minister for Science and Innovation, and by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and skills. The Prime Minister has met the new Japanese Prime Minister on at least one occasion. We very much welcome Japan's bold initiative on climate change, and its recent announcement of a £5 billion assistance package to Afghanistan. We want to continue to deepen and strengthen our relationship with Japan.

Barry Gardiner: Last Thursday evening was the first anniversary of the Mumbai bombings, in which 165 people died, many of them friends and relatives of my constituents. The involvement of the Inter-Services Intelligence in the planning of those bombings is widely known, yet there has not been co-operation by the Pakistani Government to bring the perpetrators to book. What can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that pressure is brought to bear on the Pakistani Government on this matter?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend, who has a long record as a deep, deep friend of India, is right to raise this terrible anniversary. The Prime Minister and I both conveyed to Prime Minister Singh the deepest sympathy and condolences of the British people on the first anniversary of the terrible Mumbai attacks. As for the prosecution of those involved, my hon. Friend will know that seven people have been charged in the Pakistani political system-or rather, in the Pakistani criminal justice system-for their role in the Mumbai attacks. We have been urging the Pakistani authorities to proceed with those trials at the earliest opportunity. This is an issue that we will take up again with Prime Minister Gillani when he comes to London on Thursday.

Mark Lancaster: Ascension Island faces bankruptcy next June because of the ongoing dispute between the FCO and the Ministry of Defence over just £600,000 of unpaid taxes. The island's school is set to close, and many St. Helenians are set to lose their jobs. Will the Foreign Secretary finally get a grip of this ongoing dispute, bang heads together and sort the issue out?

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. He had an interesting visit to the island earlier this year. He has mentioned these issues to me several times, and I am happy to say to him that I have every intention of trying to resolve them as a matter of urgency. I am meeting my counterpart in the Ministry of Defence tomorrow or the day after, and I hope that we will be able to have the matter resolved in time for the Overseas Territories Consultative Council.

Adrian Bailey: Russia has a crucial role to play in the future security of energy provision to this country and the EU. Can the Minister give us an update on the position and the relationship between the EU and Russia in negotiations on future energy supplies?

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The development of a common energy policy across Europe is one example where greater European co-operation and co-ordination is needed. Engagement with Russia needs to be taken forward on a far more coherent basis. That is one of the priorities for the new Commission. It is certainly something that we will be urging upon it.

Norman Baker: Just a few days into the Chilcot inquiry, it must be painfully obvious to everybody both that the Hutton inquiry of 2003 was useless and that Tony Blair gravely misled the House and the country. Given that John Chilcot is chairing a non-statutory inquiry, what steps will the Government take to ensure that Mr. Blair and his immediate circle at the time are properly held to account for the enormity of what they did?

David Miliband: I think that after a week of the Chilcot inquiry, it is time for all sides to recognise the value of the inquiry. It is doing its work in an outstandingly professional and clear way. We should allow it to finish its work. No one else is drawing conclusions, even if the hon. Gentleman is. My suspicion is that he already had his conclusions before the inquiry even opened its doors.

Brian Iddon: The middle east peace process is badly hindered by the rift between Fatah and Hamas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Marwan Barghouti is able to heal that rift, we should persuade the Israelis to release him from prison?

Ivan Lewis: Any decision on the release of prisoners is a matter for the Israeli Government and has to be a case for negotiation between the Israelis and the Palestinians. In the context of that debate, we strongly urge Hamas immediately to release Gilad Shalit, who was illegally detained against international law. We support the Egyptian efforts to seek unification in the Palestinian leadership between Hamas and Fatah. As I understand it, Fatah signed up to such an agreement, brokered by the Egyptians, but Hamas refused to do so. We continue to support the Egyptian efforts.

Nicholas Winterton: Extreme violence against both black and white in Zimbabwe continues, and Mr. Mugabe totally ignores the rulings of Southern African Development Community institutions. Is it not now the case that the only individual who can do anything about Mr. Mugabe and bring about his fall is Mr. Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa, who could switch off the electricity and cut off the fuel supplies to Zimbabwe?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman, who has taken a long interest in that issue, is right to point to the importance of South Africa, and in particular of President Zuma. President Zuma gave to the closing session of the Commonwealth conference a report on SADC's efforts, and he dedicated himself to support the global political agreement that, after all, has been signed by Prime Minister Tsvangirai as well as by President Mugabe. Switching off the electricity is not part of the global political agreement. It is right that we support those brave reformers in Zimbabwe who have committed themselves to the political process. I very much understand the hon. Gentleman's scepticism about the ability of ZANU-PF to stick to the agreement, but it seems to me vital that the international community remains united in demanding that it do so.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is extremely regrettable that the British Government's representative did not take part in the vote at the UN Human Rights Council on the Goldstone commission report, which I understand has now been referred to the UN Security Council. Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that there will be no further blockage of a full investigation of Goldstone's recommendations, and that if necessary, the cases will be referred for international judicial review?

David Miliband: I am sorry if there is any confusion about that issue in my hon. Friend's mind, but the British Government have been absolutely clear that we support an independent, full and transparent inquiry into the credible allegations that the Goldstone report makes. We have made that position absolutely clear in public and in private, and that seems to me to be the right position to hold. That is different from giving a wholesale endorsement of the Goldstone report, which includes some items that we are clear are not accurate, and also fails to take account of some important factors. However, the report makes credible and serious allegations that should be investigated through a transparent and full inquiry. We continue to say that.

Crispin Blunt: With reference to the previous answer by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), to his hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), does the Foreign Office understand the sense of injustice that is the principal motivating factor behind so much Islamist violence, and that a just settlement of the middle east peace process is an absolutely vital British national interest?

Ivan Lewis: The Government are absolutely clear that there is an urgent need for progress in the peace process. We strongly advocate, as a matter of urgency, comprehensive negotiations towards a two-state solution-a viable contiguous Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. Those negotiations have to deal with the questions of the 1967 borders, of Jerusalem, of justice for Palestinian refugees, and of normalised relationships between the Arab world and Israel. That is now a matter of urgency: we share the hon. Gentleman's analysis in that respect.

Gordon Prentice: Will the Government accept the results of the election in Honduras last Sunday-and if so, why?

Chris Bryant: We made it clear before the elections that we believed that President Zelaya should not have been removed from power, and that if the elections were to be valid, they had to be engaged in under President Zelaya. Without his return before the end of his term, which is at the end of January, it will be impossible to believe that those were proper elections. However, we recognise and welcome the fact that the elections that did take place did so in a peaceful situation.

Alistair Carmichael: May I commend Ministers for their continuing engagement with the situation in Burma? However, will they, perhaps with their colleagues in the Department for International Development, investigate reports coming out now that aid to the Chin people on the border with India is being given in the form of loans on which 200 per cent. interest is charged? Surely that is not consistent with other Government policy in the region.

Ivan Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the situation in Burma is crucial. Right now, it is poised at an incredibly important stage, and we believe that we must maintain sanctions against the Burmese regime while engaging in a political and diplomatic process and seeking to secure the release of political prisoners-especially Aung San Suu Kyi. On the hon. Gentleman's specific point, I shall write to him with the information.

Mr. Speaker: I call Lindsay Hoyle.  [ Interruption. ]

Lindsay Hoyle: Nothing wrong with being tail-end Charlie, is there, Mr. Speaker?
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary laid a wreath on behalf of the overseas territories, but has the time not come for the overseas territories to be allowed to lay it? We had a meeting with a previous Minister, who said that they accepted that the territories had grown up enough, so we should rid them of their colonial masters and allow them to lay a wreath themselves.

Chris Bryant: rose-

Andrew MacKinlay: You agreed with that when you were a Back Bencher.

Chris Bryant: And my views have not changed. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) knows that the issue will be discussed in the Overseas Territories Consultative Council next week. Let us hope that we can come to a conclusion that is suitable to all.

Gary McKinnon (Extradition)

David Burrowes: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his decision not to intervene to stop Gary McKinnon's extradition to the United States.
	Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this urgent question on behalf of my constituent.

Alan Johnson: Gary McKinnon is accused of serious criminal offences. He is alleged to have repeatedly hacked into US Government computer networks over a period of 13 months, including 97 US military computers from which he deleted vital operating systems and then copied encrypted information on to his own computer, shutting down the entire US army's military district of Washington's computer network for 24 hours. During interviews under caution, Mr. McKinnon admitted to much of the conduct he is accused of.
	A great deal has been made of the perceived imbalance in UK-US extradition arrangements in respect of probable cause versus reasonable suspicion. While I am clear that no such imbalance exists, as Mr. McKinnon has admitted the conduct which has given rise to the extradition request, this issue is academic in his case. This aside, under the terms of the Extradition Act 2003, I can prevent an extradition only in very specific circumstances: where the person in question could be sentenced to death if convicted; where there is a chance of that person being tried for crimes committed before that extradition which were not specified in the extradition request; or where the person has previously been extradited to the UK from another country, or transferred here by the International Criminal Court, and no consent has been given to their being extradited elsewhere.
	Outside of the statutory extradition scheme, the courts have made it clear that the only circumstances in which I could prevent extradition would be where the evidence demonstrates that extradition would be a breach of human rights. If it would breach human rights to proceed with extradition, I would have to halt proceedings. If it would not, it would be unlawful for me to do so.
	Mr. McKinnon has challenged his extradition in the district court, the High Court, with the Law Lords, and in the European Court of Human Rights, all of whom have ruled that the extradition should go ahead. Following the diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome in August 2008, he made fresh representations to the then Home Secretary claiming that because of his medical condition his extradition would breach the European convention on human rights. The then Home Secretary decided in October 2008 that the evidence Mr. McKinnon submitted did not meet the threshold needed to constitute a breach of the ECHR. Mr. McKinnon challenged in the High Court this decision and the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service that there were no grounds for him to be tried in this country.
	On 31 July 2009, the High Court handed down both judgments. In its judgment on the Director of Public Prosecution's decision that Mr. McKinnon should be tried in the US, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton said this:
	"It is true that the Claimant's offending conduct took place in this country. However, it was directed at the USA, and at computers in the USA; the information he accessed or could have accessed was US information; its confidentiality and sensitivity were American; and any damage that was inflicted was in the USA. The witnesses who can address the damage done by his offences are in America...However, it is not for this Court to decide where he should be prosecuted. The decision is that of the DPP. As appears from the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, he cannot be faulted for considering that, other things being equal, the Claimant should be prosecuted in the USA."
	He expressed the view that it would be
	"manifestly unsatisfactory in the extreme"
	for Mr. McKinnon to be tried in the UK and refused permission for this aspect to be judicially reviewed.
	Secondly, the Court ruled on 31 July that the decision of the Home Secretary that the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the US would not amount to a breach of his human rights was also correct. The Lord Justice said:
	"Ultimately, I have to weigh the impressive medical evidence adduced by the Claimant against the severity involved in Article 3. I have no doubt that he will find extradition to, and trial and sentence and detention in the USA, very difficult indeed. His mental health will suffer. There are risks of worse, including suicide. But if I compare his condition with those considered in the authorities to which I have referred above, even taking full account of the (in my view undesirable) possibility of his being prosecuted in this country, his case does not approach Article 3 severity."
	Following that decision, Mr. McKinnon's lawyers made fresh representations, including additional medical evidence. I have carefully considered those representations and I am clear that the information that his lawyers have provided is not materially different from that placed before the High Court earlier this year and does not demonstrate that sending Mr. McKinnon to the United States would breach his human rights.
	There are legitimate concerns about Mr. McKinnon's health, and the United States authorities have provided assurances, which were before the High Court in July, that his needs will be met. It is also clear from the proceedings to date that there is no real risk that Mr. McKinnon, if convicted, will serve any of his sentence in a supermax prison. Should Mr. McKinnon be extradited, charged and convicted in the US and seek repatriation to the UK to serve his sentence in this country, the Government will progress his application at the very earliest opportunity.
	As I have said at every stage of these proceedings, we will not commence extradition proceedings until all legal avenues that Mr. McKinnon wishes to pursue have been exhausted. He can lodge a judicial review within seven days of this decision, and he can appeal to the ECHR within 14 days of the same date. I am currently considering a request from Mr. McKinnon's lawyers for an extension of the seven-day time limit.

David Burrowes: I do not propose to ask the Home Secretary to use any general discretion that he says he does not have, nor today do I wish to highlight the unfairness of the UK-US extradition treaty. I want him to focus on the medical evidence, which he has considered and not disputed, and the limited human rights discretion that he accepts he has.
	Does the Home Secretary not accept that Professor Jeremy Turk's report of 8 October raised new and material evidence, namely that Gary McKinnon
	"is now suffering from an exacerbation of his very serious Major Depressive Disorder...aggravated and complicated by anxiety and panic attacks"
	aligned to his having Asperger's syndrome? Given that he now places Gary McKinnon at an
	"even higher risk of self-harm and suicide"
	than after his earlier report, and concludes that
	"suicide is now a real probability and will be an almost certain inevitability should he experience extradition",
	and that there is a high probability that he
	"will require inpatient psychiatric containment",
	surely he has established a real risk of human rights being breached should extradition proceed. Putting it more bluntly, how ill and vulnerable does Gary McKinnon need to be not to be extradited to the United States?
	The Home Secretary wants to rely on previous court judgments. Given that Lord Justice Stanley Burnton indicated that if Gary McKinnon were not extradited he could be prosecuted in this country, how can it be proportionate to allow the extradition of a UK citizen who is suicidal and sectionable? Is it not the case that far from being powerless to stop Gary McKinnon's extradition, in the light of the medical evidence the Home Secretary has shown himself and his Government to be spineless?

Alan Johnson: This is a difficult decision, and not one that can be made by the hon. Gentleman. I admire him for the way in which he has represented his constituent, and I met him just a couple of weeks ago on a one-to-one basis. I understand that completely, but I am the only person who can make this decision and I have to make it on the basis of the facts, and all the facts. It is a quasi-judicial decision, and Lord Justice Burnton did not say that if Gary McKinnon were not extradited he could be tried in this country. I have quoted what he said-he was absolutely clear that that is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is not for politicians to decide whether someone is prosecuted and where, and he said that it would be
	"manifestly unsatisfactory in the extreme"
	were Mr. McKinnon to be tried anywhere other in the US.
	On the question of the medical evidence, Professor Turk's diagnosis and opinions were handed to me by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning), who is sitting next to the hon. Gentleman. I stopped the clock to look at that diagnosis and those opinions very thoroughly and carefully, but they do not raise any issues that are materially, let alone fundamentally, different from those considered by Professor Baron-Cohen and Dr. Berney in the reports that were before the High Court in June 2009.
	Lord Justice Burnton said that Gary McKinnon's case
	"does not approach Article 3 severity",
	and the hon. Gentleman asked which conditions did. Lord Justice Burnton pointed out a whole series of decisions in cases involving people with bipolar disorder, and people with other very serious medical conditions indeed-conditions that many would say were much more serious than the medical condition of Gary McKinnon. Those cases did not reach article 3 severity. Difficult though the decision is, I have no menu of options to choose from; there is either a breach of article 3 of the European declaration of human rights or there is not. My view is that there is not. That can be challenged in the courts.

Damian Green: Throughout this wretched process, and again today, the Home Secretary has sought to minimise the amount of discretion that he has. He told the McKinnon family, and said again today, that the only issue that he could consider was whether Gary McKinnon's human rights were being breached by his extradition. Of course I accept the Home Secretary's version of his powers, and I therefore ask him to consider some questions in that narrow context.
	First, is it proportionate or a breach of human rights to extradite someone in the context of what has been alleged? The US prosecutors say that Mr. McKinnon was attempting to
	"influence and affect the US government by intimidation and coercion".
	He allegedly hacked into US army computers and left messages attacking US foreign policy. Is that really intimidating or coercive to the US military? More to the point, does the Home Secretary seriously believe that that would be the action of a terrorist?
	Secondly, does Mr. McKinnon really need to be extradited to stand trial? As the Home Secretary will have seen, there are reports that the Crown Prosecution Service wanted to prosecute Mr. McKinnon in this country for computer misuse, but that those efforts were blocked. Is that true? Thirdly, is it not a breach of his human rights to send a man with Asperger's and depression to face a possible 60-year sentence? The Home Secretary will have seen the opinion of one psychiatrist that that will amount to a death sentence. It is, of course, horribly ironic that it would be illegal to send someone to another country to face an explicit death sentence.
	Fourthly, will the Home Secretary not accept that the imbalance in the Extradition Act 2003 means that a British citizen facing extradition has fewer human rights than a US citizen would have if the position were reversed? Baroness Scotland, the Government's Attorney-General, said in 2003:
	"when we make extradition requests to the United States we shall need to submit sufficient evidence to establish 'probable cause'. That is a lower test than prima facie but a higher threshold than we ask of the United States"-[ Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 1063.]
	Why does the Home Secretary disagree with his Attorney-General that the extradition treaty is unbalanced and unfair?
	Finally, does the Home Secretary not recognise that the Extradition Act 2003 was put in place to ensure that terrorists did not escape justice? It was never intended to deal with a case such as the one that we are discussing. Can he not see that his actions regarding Gary McKinnon have damaged this country's reputation, damaged relations between Britain and our most important ally and, most importantly, damaged a very vulnerable and sick young man?

Alan Johnson: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman accepts the fact about the so-called discretion. My discretion-if the word is suitable-allows me to look at Gary McKinnon's case against the tests that are set out in law. As it was after Gary McKinnon had been through the district court, the High Court, the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights that he was diagnosed as having Asperger's, that was a supervening diagnosis, which meant that the then Home Secretary had to look at the matter against the European declaration on human rights.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about Gary McKinnon's offences. This is not a matter of my finding Gary McKinnon innocent or guilty. There are very serious charges against Mr. McKinnon-the hon. Gentleman does not contest that and neither, incidentally, does the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), Mr. McKinnon's constituency MP. They are serious charges and Mr. McKinnon has to answer those charges. The Director of Public Prosecutions has decided that that has to take place in the US. There is no further right of appeal-the High Court would not allow a judicial review. So we come to whether that breaches Gary McKinnon's human rights. All the legal cases quoted by Lord Justice Burnton relate to medical conditions and mental health conditions that are far worse than those that apply to Mr. McKinnon.
	The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) asked whether there is truth in the rumour that we were going to prosecute Mr. McKinnon in the UK. No, there is no truth in that rumour. All the actions in this case are clear for anyone to see from the time Mr. McKinnon was charged onwards through all the processes of the law and then through the processes of the law again.
	The hon. Gentleman talked, once again, about an imbalance between the level of evidence that the US must apply to the UK in order to get someone extradited and the evidence that we must put before the US courts. He said that there is an imbalance between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. I pointed out that that is academic in the case of Mr. McKinnon because he has admitted the charges. However, members of both main Opposition parties have argued about this point. That argument was made in 2003, when the treaty was being concluded. What has happened since? In how many cases have we failed to get extradition from the US? None. Zilch. Nil. None whatsoever. Every case we have made to the US using probable cause has been successful. In contrast, there are seven cases in which the US has sought extradition from this country that are still held up in the system.
	The hon. Gentleman said that my decision damages relationships between this country and the US. That is a bizarre interpretation given the serious nature of these crimes and the fact that America, a friendly state with a mature democratic judicial system, wants to extradite Gary McKinnon to face trial. The interpretation, were that to affect our relationship with the US in any way, should be the other way around.

Christopher Huhne: The Home Secretary is, in my view, a very brave man to hold out his judgment of the medical condition-and of the worsening of the medical condition-of Gary McKinnon against such overwhelming evidence as we have heard from the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes). Gary McKinnon is a vulnerable British citizen who has become more vulnerable and whose interests are being ignored in favour of an unequal treaty with the United States. Nobody contests that he has Asperger's or that that condition has been diagnosed since the beginning of the process and has got substantially worse. That alone should be enough to merit some compassion for his condition and mitigation of the penalty for a crime that he admits, as the Home Secretary knows.
	Does the Home Secretary recognise that the clear risks to Mr. McKinnon's health and even life have increased since the beginning of the process and will increase further if he is not tried here but is extradited? Does he recognise from the additional medical evidence that the problems faced by Gary McKinnon are more substantial than they were at the beginning? Does that risk not worry him, particularly given the fine balance that he has to strike in deciding when there is a breach of someone's human rights?
	May I also ask whether the Prime Minister has considered this case? Will the Government now put the interests of justice for an increasingly vulnerable British citizen ahead of their relations with a foreign Government? Is the Home Secretary prepared to accept the real risk that he will have the life of a man on his hands?

Alan Johnson: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern. He came to see me with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) in the summer, and we discussed this issue, as I am willing to do on every occasion. I accept the vulnerability of Gary McKinnon, as I accept the vulnerability in many cases that go through the courts and in which a decision on extradition has to be taken. I note that I have been called spineless and a brave man within five minutes.
	I do not argue that these decisions do not need very careful contemplation, and I have thought about this one long and hard. I have looked at every single word submitted by Gary McKinnon's lawyers on the evidence of his medical condition. As I have said previously, that is not materially different from the evidence that was before Lord Justice Burnton in June and on which he made his pronouncement on 30 July. I quoted Lord Justice Burnton in my statement saying that he accepts that there is a risk of suicide, and that is a heavy burden on any Home Secretary's shoulders-as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) said in his final point. Nevertheless, my job is to uphold the law-to look at the European convention on human rights and decide whether article 3 is being breached in this case. My decision, based on all the evidence, is that article 3 rights are not being breached in the case of Gary McKinnon. Hon. Members may disagree, but I hope they do not think that that decision was made in any other circumstances than after the most careful contemplation.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. No fewer than 23 Members are seeking to catch my eye. Naturally, I am keen to accommodate as many as a reasonable allocation of time will allow, but I appeal to each right hon. and hon. Member to ask a single, short supplementary question and, of course, to the Home Secretary to provide an economical reply.

Liz Blackman: My right hon. Friend mentioned a brief conversation that he had with the US authorities about how Gary McKinnon might be supported, should he be extradited. Could he flesh that out in a great deal more detail? Unconnected, but a point worth making, is the fact that many adults with Asperger's are never diagnosed, and a late diagnosis is not unusual.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the Home Secretary will provide one answer to two questions.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is right in her final comment. It is not unusual to have a late diagnosis. I did not mention any conversation with the US authorities. The question of bail would be entirely for the independent judiciary. If Gary McKinnon were extradited and if he were convicted-and all the evidence would have to be placed before a court-and if he were given a custodial sentence, the procedure under the transfer of sentenced persons convention would kick in. As I said in the letter to Gary McKinnon's mother and to his lawyers, we stand ready to implement that procedure at the appropriate time. That time is a long way away, because at the moment Gary McKinnon has not been convicted of anything.

Angela Browning: I hope that the Home Secretary will accept that Gary McKinnon was born with Asperger's syndrome, and that will have contributed to his behaviour with the computers in the first place. It would help Gary McKinnon's state of mind if he knew now that if he were to receive a custodial sentence, he would serve it in the UK. Instead of the Home Secretary saying that that is down the track, if he would make it clear now that the Home Office would support that, it might help Gary McKinnon's state of mind.

Alan Johnson: I appreciate what the hon. Lady says, and much of the medical evidence was about Gary McKinnon's fear of serving time in a US jail. The problem at the moment is that the case is still in the judicial process. Gary McKinnon's lawyers still have an opportunity to appeal, not only for judicial review of my decision, but to the courts. I do not want to get into that level of detail. It must be right, just as with other extradition cases, that we let matters unfold and cross each appropriate bridge when we come to it. I am well aware of the concerns that the hon. Lady expresses. At the moment, we have an extradition case, not a trial or a conviction.

Keith Vaz: I have respect for the Home Secretary, but I believe that he has made the wrong decision for the wrong reasons. He gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, and I wrote to him expressing the Committee's unanimous view that his scope for discretion was wider. We are prepared to publish our legal advice; will he do the same? If fresh evidence comes before him, is he prepared to do what he did on a previous occasion, and for which we were grateful, and stop the clock and consider that evidence?

Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend, in his Select Committee report, did not unearth a different view on whether I had discretion. Two lawyers from Matrix Chambers gave evidence to the Committee and said exactly what I have said today: if there were a supervening diagnosis-it was not in these words, but this is the gist of what they said-I, like my predecessor, have the discretion, when all the court cases are finished and if something new arises, to decide whether the case meets article 3 severity. That is what Matrix Chambers said in its evidence to the Committee, and that is what I am saying, so there is absolutely no difference between us.
	I think we have established, with the very honest remarks of the hon. Member for Ashford, that actually we all accept where my discretion-if we want to call it that-lies. There might arise fresh evidence. When the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton gave me the evidence on Gary McKinnon and what was said to be his worsening condition, of course I looked at the matter again. That is what my predecessor did as well. Incidentally, we have now had three Home Secretaries making the same decision. This is a matter for the Home Secretary, of course, but I believe that anyone in my position would have come to the same conclusion, irrespective of how difficult it might be.

Cheryl Gillan: This year, the House passed a groundbreaking Act on autism, which was the first ever disability-specific legislation and recognised the unique nature and needs of people diagnosed with autism. How can a Government on the one hand legislate to recognise that unique condition, but on the other discount the expert medical advice reinforcing the point that, in this case, extradition is wholly inappropriate and potentially lethal to Gary? Quite frankly, is there no logic, justice or humanity left in the Government?

Alan Johnson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who holds a position within the National Autistic Society, previously made it clear to those who were lobbying him over this case that he appreciated the problems of autism. I, too, appreciate them. I was Secretary of State for Health and understand completely why that legislation was passed. However, the hon. Lady is too sensible and intelligent to suggest, evenly remotely, that because someone has autism, they do not have to face the consequences of their-alleged-offences. That is not the case. As I have mentioned, we have before us the case of someone with bipolar disorder fighting a similar case, and there are other cases of people with very serious medical complaints. We have to look at Gary McKinnon's case with compassion and test it through the courts. We have done that, and I believe our decision is the right one.

Kate Hoey: Does the Home Secretary not appreciate that the vast majority of the public, listening to his fine words, will not understand a word of the way in which he has used one bit of an article and another bit of an article? They will see the Government not standing up for a British citizen in a very difficult situation-not someone who does not want to be tried, but someone who wants to be tried in this country. Will they not regard the French Government's treatment of someone such as Roman Polanski, who is not even in their country, as the way in which citizens should be stood up for? Will the Home Secretary not see that, even at this stage, he could find a way around this if he really wanted to prevent Gary McKinnon from being extradited?

Mr. Speaker: May I say that I think that my exhortation for single questions has momentarily been forgotten? However, I am sure that it will be remembered now.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is wrong to say that I am trying to take one bit from here and one bit from there. Those bits and pieces are the European convention on human rights-they are very important, are now part of our law through the Human Rights Act 1998 and are crucial. Cases have to be judged against it.
	My hon. Friend states the opinion of the public as if she is the arbiter of public opinion. People in this country want to see a proper extradition that is fair and that not only allows us to bring criminals back from abroad-as we have done on many occasions, including from America-but allows other countries where offences are committed to have the same benefits.
	In the case of America, I have already set out the clear views of the courts. It is not for me or any other politician to decide whether to prosecute. The Law Lord, Lord Justice Lloyd said in the other place that it is absolutely wrong for any politician to decide whether to prosecute-and, by definition, where to prosecute-any individual. That was not a matter for me; it was a matter for the prosecuting authorities. They have decided that Gary McKinnon should stand trial in America.

John Randall: Will the Home Secretary acquaint himself with the case of a young man in the London borough of Hillingdon who suffered from the same condition as Gary McKinnon and who hacked into BT's system? He was arrested, but BT decided to drop the charges and instead invited him to work on its security. He is now successfully undertaking a degree in IT. Perhaps the way forward might be to try to persuade the US authorities to drop the charges, in order for Gary McKinnon's undoubted skills to be used for good instead of bad.

Alan Johnson: All that can come out at the trial. As for whether that case was serious or trivial, all I know is that no one has argued that the criminal charges in this case are not very serious. It happened just after the 3,000 deaths on 9/11, at a time when America was particularly sensitive. The Americans will decide, but the decision of the public prosecutors in this country is that Gary McKinnon should be tried in America. That has been upheld in the courts; indeed, the High Court refused to give a judicial review and it was aware of all the other cases, including the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Nevertheless, the court decided that America is the proper place for Gary McKinnon to be tried. As for his defence at that trial, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will form part of it.

Mark Lazarowicz: Nobody reasonable in the House could dispute that the Home Secretary has a difficult decision to make in this case, and he has clearly considered it carefully. However, given that there is so much public concern about Gary McKinnon's possible extradition, I urge my right hon. Friend to consider again whether there is any way in which he can take steps to prevent his being extradited. Many people in this country would certainly welcome that. I urge my right hon. Friend to think again and try to find some way of making it happen.

Alan Johnson: It is just not good enough for a Home Secretary to be told to find "some way", irrespective of what the European Court of Human Rights or the law says. It is not the Home Secretary's job to be popular or to please whatever media campaign happens to be on the go; it is the Home Secretary's job to uphold the law-to look at things carefully and make the right judgment. That is what I have done.

Menzies Campbell: As the Home Secretary knows, extradition is based on the principle of reciprocity. Let me ask him this question: does he think there would be the slightest chance of an American citizen being extradited to the United Kingdom in similar circumstances and on similar evidence?

Alan Johnson: I hear this kind of argument all the time. Yes is absolutely my answer to that question. Just as we have extradited more than 30 people since the treaty came in, we have not been refused on any occasion, so this kind of faint anti-Americanism-as if the Americans' system is totally corrupt and our system is brilliant-is not something I accept. Nor do I accept that America would not extradite somebody over here in exactly the same circumstances.

Andrew MacKinlay: I listened carefully to the closing sentences of the Secretary of State's statement, which I want to look at in detail. He has basically inherited a Blunkett blunder, which is the treaty. The mood of the House is such that we want to revisit that treaty, in order that caveats can be put in. Will he consider bringing forward emergency legislation so we can address that issue?

Alan Johnson: No, and for three reasons. Number one, no one has given an argument explaining why probable cause is less of a hurdle to cross than reasonable suspicion; none. Number two, there is not a single case- [ Interruption. ] An hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench says that the Attorney-General said that. In a debate in another place on precisely this issue just two weeks ago, when an amendment was tabled to the then Policing and Crime Bill to say that we should revisit the issue in relation to forum-where an individual would be prosecuted-and when the House of Lords successfully overturned an amendment of that nature, the Attorney-General made it absolutely plain that it is a matter of form against fact.
	When the Attorney-General was a Home Office Minister, she talked at this Dispatch Box about the legislation that we were debating, but which was not then in place. We now have four or five years' experience of this legislation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) cannot point to one single case-and nor could my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) at the Home Affairs Committee-or any argument in fact showing that there was an imbalance between the two Acts. I repeat: they could not point to one single argument. In relation to Gary McKinnon, of course, the issue is academic because he has admitted to the charges.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman really must understand that there is a fundamental difference between the situation in the United States and here. The extradition of the UK citizen to the United States does not require prima facie evidence that the offence has been committed; the extradition of a US citizen to the United Kingdom requires probable cause. These things are different, and the matter must be looked at afresh.

Alan Johnson: I have been patronised by less wealthy people than the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Let me say to him that probable cause is defined in the US courts as
	"reasonable grounds for belief of guilt";
	while reasonable suspicion is defined by Lord Devlin like this:
	"The circumstances of the case should be such as a reasonable man acting without passion or prejudice would fairly have suspected the person of having committed the offence".
	The first point, then, is that that is as close as two different legal systems could be. The second point is that in all the years during which this treaty has been in place, there has not been an issue of fact that backs up the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. The third point is that this has nothing to do with Gary McKinnon's case because no one had to prove reasonable suspicion or probable cause, as he has admitted at least to a large chunk of the offences.

Tom Watson: I do not envy my right hon. Friend, who for the many years I have known him has always campaigned for justice. Is not the lesson from this case that there is at best a cross-jurisdictional opacity in the way we interpret treaties for alleged crimes conducted in cyberspace, which will be an increasing problem in the years to come, so we need a piece of work that looks at all our treaties and how we interpret this problem?

Alan Johnson: I, too, have great respect for my hon. Friend, and certainly for his expertise in this area. I have seen nothing, however, that suggests that there is any need for such an investigation or examination. Many cases now take place in cyberspace, and I think the courts are perfectly able to decide them and the prosecuting authorities to handle them. I see no need either in this case or in other cases of a similar nature under consideration at the moment, particularly those concerning extradition, to review how the law works in these circumstances.

David Davis: I am not going to be rude to the Home Secretary because he is in a very difficult position-one forecast by Conservative Members in 2003 and then in 2006, when the right hon. Gentleman's Government put this foolish law in place. Much of what he said rested on legal advice. He will have seen from today's newspapers the comment from Geoffrey Robertson, the senior-very senior-human rights lawyer who said:
	"To send a British citizen to the US, without any right to bail, to face 10 years in prison for a crime for which he would be unlikely to receive any custodial sentence if tried here amounts to 'cruel and unusual punishment' in breach of our 1689 Bill of Rights. The home secretary should not hide behind the weasel words of the European Convention when he should be following the law laid down by our own historic bill of rights."
	Will the right hon. Gentleman please answer that?

Alan Johnson: Yes, I read that piece. The courts-the district court, the High Court, the Law Lords, the European Court in Strasbourg-have all looked at this case and they have looked at it as against the law. Now there is an opportunity for them to look at it again. The right hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that the same arguments applied to the NatWest three. We were told about them that they would not get bail, but they did; we were told that they would spend two years in a maximum security prison, which they did not; and we were told that they would face 20 years in jail, which they did not. All the terrible things predicted to take place in the case of the NatWest three did not take place. The hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and for Tiverton and Honiton made the right point about what was the right time to look at those specific issues. At the moment, I believe that it is absolutely right that this extradition proceed, but there will be a time for a legal challenge.

Andrew Miller: I recognise the very difficult dilemma faced by my right hon. Friend, but is it not about time that we asked our American friends-I use the word "friends" deliberately-to examine the case again in the context of the benefits they have accrued through Gary McKinnon's work? Had he not masterfully broken through their security systems, those systems would be vulnerable today. It is about time the Americans recognised that. I am not in favour of people "testing" my burglar alarm, but in this instance Gary McKinnon has done a huge favour to the American state.

Alan Johnson: I do not accept that argument. It is akin to the argument that if people left their windows open-

Andrew Miller: He did not steal anything.

Alan Johnson: Please. The argument is that if someone is accused of serious criminal offences-and no one doubts that that applies to Gary McKinnon-

Andrew Miller: He did not steal anything.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend keeps saying that Gary McKinnon did not steal anything; I am not saying he did. What I am saying is that we do not judge such cases on the basis of whether or not it was easy to commit the crime, or whether the person involved made it easier for the crime to be committed. We do not do that in relation to any kind of offence, and we should not do it in relation to offences in cyberspace.

Crispin Blunt: Having listened carefully to the Home Secretary, I conclude that he thinks that the actions of the United States authorities are reasonable in the circumstances. Does he also think that they are wise?

Alan Johnson: I think that they are reasonable actions. As for whether we would be in exactly the same position if someone had been hacking into the United Kingdom's defences over a 12-month period, with the same effect and at that particular time, and if that person had left the messages that were left at that particular time, I am absolutely sure that Members would be outraged if the United States refused to extradite the person responsible to this country.

Rob Marris: This is the sad case of a sad middle-aged man who is alleged to have deleted part of American security computer systems. That has led both Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons today to state in terms that anyone with Asperger's should never be extradited or tried. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that approach is an insult to people with Asperger's, who have a range of responsibilities and capabilities including, in some cases, criminal responsibility and criminal capability?

Alan Johnson: I agree that a diagnosis of Asperger's does not mean that it is a breach of human rights to be extradited to face trial for serious criminal offences. Every court in the land has said that, and it has been said by the highest court authority-the High Court. We will look at the facts again. We have looked at the fresh medical and psychiatric evidence, and that is open to be tested in the courts as well, but as yet the courts have decided that this does not approach article 3 severity.

Iris Robinson: The decision will grate on the people of Northern Ireland, who for years have witnessed political and judicial protection for IRA terrorist murderers who fled to America and were never extradited despite many requests. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State reconsider his view?

Alan Johnson: I understand how deeply the hon. Lady feels about the issue, given her experience, but it is not my job or that of the courts-and I do not think any Member would suggest that it was-to make such quasi-judicial decisions on the basis of anything other than the law and anything other than the European declaration of human rights. It is absolutely not the case, in my view, that a decision such as this should be made on any kind of tit-for-tat basis which may or may not exist in respect of decisions that America may have made in the past.

Jeremy Corbyn: As the Home Secretary is apparently looking again at all the medical evidence and the issues surrounding the case, will he look again at the possibility of a prosecution being mounted in the United Kingdom to avoid the whole issue of extradition? That would obviously bring an end to what is a very stressful experience for this young man.

Alan Johnson: At the risk of repeating myself, let me say that I will not look at all the medical evidence again. I have already looked at it; that is why the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate has laid an urgent question in the House. Secondly, it is the job of the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether, and where, to prosecute. That has been upheld in the courts, and on 31 July the High Court refused permission to go to judicial review. That issue has now gone; the only issue left is whether extradition would breach Mr. McKinnon's human rights.

John Mason: Tomorrow, we will debate the Equality Bill, which I support and whose aim is to protect people who are disabled. Does the Home Secretary not see an inconsistency between what the Equality Bill is intended to achieve and this decision?

Alan Johnson: I do not see any contradiction whatever. I am making a decision based on whether Mr. McKinnon's article 3 human rights would be breached. I am glad the hon. Gentleman and his party support the Equality Bill, but so far as I am aware, nobody is suggesting that people who are disabled should never be prosecuted.

Alistair Carmichael: When I was employed as a public prosecutor, it was my duty to make decisions on whether or not to prosecute based on what was in the public interest. The Home Secretary has got compelling evidence today that the decision not to prosecute exposes Gary McKinnon to the probable-if not the inevitable-risk of his committing suicide. I do not see how that can be in the public interest, and regardless of the question of judicial review, why, in these circumstances and with that evidence, is the DPP not being invited to reconsider his decision not to prosecute?

Alan Johnson: Because the High Court ruled, for the reasons I explained in my statement- [Interruption.] The High Court ruled that it was a matter for the DPP to decide- [Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman will just be quiet, I will give him the answer. The High Court decided, quite rightly, that it was the DPP's decision. He felt that the decision in this case was right. He set out the reasons why it was right-and I have set them out again in my statement-and he refused to allow judicial review. My deliberations have nothing to do with the decision to prosecute, or where to prosecute. My deliberations are about whether this decision breaches Gary McKinnon's human rights.

European Financial Services Proposals

[Relevant documents: Thirty-second Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2008-09, Chapter 2, HC 19-xxx, and the First Report from the Committee, Session 20 09-10, Chapters 1 and 2, HC 5-i; and  Sixteenth Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 2008-09, on the Committee's Opinion on proposals for European Financial Supervision, HC 1088, and the First Report from the Committee, Session 2009-10, Proposals for European financial supervision: further report, HC 37. ]

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of the following European Union Documents-
	(a) 3645/09, Proposal for a Council Decision entrusting the European Central Bank with concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board;
	(b) 13648/09, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on Community macro prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board;
	(c) 13652/09, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Banking Authority;
	(d) 13653/09, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority;
	(e) 13654/09, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Securities and Markets Authority;
	(f) 13656/09, Commission Staff Working Document-Possible amendments to Financial Services legislation-accompanying document to-
	(i) 13652/09
	(ii) 13653/09
	(iii) 13654/09;
	(g) 13657/09, Commission Staff Working Document-Impact Assessment-accompanying document to-
	(i) 13645/09
	(ii) 13648/09
	(iii) 13652/09
	(iv) 13653/09
	(v) 13654/09;
	(h) 13658/09, Commission Staff Working Document-Summary of the Impact Assessment; and
	(i) 15093/09, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 1998/26/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2003/6/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2003/71/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2004/109/EC, 2005/60/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2009/65/EC in respect of the powers of the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority;
	and endorses the Government's approach to setting up a new financial supervisory structure in the EU.
	First, I should like to thank the European Scrutiny Committee for calling this debate on these extremely important issues. As several hon. Members present will remember, I took part in another of the Committee's debates back in June, when we had a very useful discussion of the European Commission's initial proposals for European Union regulatory reform. Since then, however, things have moved on somewhat. In September, the Commission published its draft legislative proposals to establish a new supervisory architecture, and I look forward to discussing the issues again today.
	It might be helpful if I first set out the proposals contained in the documents that we shall be debating this afternoon. The Commission's legislative package establishes at the macro-prudential level a European systemic risk board, comprised of EU central banks, to identify risks in the financial system. The body will issue warnings where these risks are deemed significant, and will, where appropriate, issue recommendations on how to mitigate these risks.

William Cash: As I am a member of the ESC, I am sure the Minister will understand my wishing to draw attention to the fact that in our most recent report we have, effectively, condemned the idea that we should rush forward with these proposals. There are many good reasons for that, which are set out in our report. Furthermore, does the Minister accept the following point, which I have repeatedly made to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer-this is, effectively, a sell-out to the process of majority voting, and it will do immense damage to the City of London, which accounts for an enormous percentage of our GDP? Does she also agree that there is no justification for the speed with which this is being done, or for handing over the whole of this ramshackle structure to the European Court of Justice?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I disagree with him on this and that I think it is important that we have a European harmonisation of regulation. That was agreed at not only the European level, but the global level. I think we would all agree that we are looking for a harmonisation of regulation at a global level, and the EU process can move forward on that.

Mark Todd: Will the Minister give way?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I shall finish answering the original intervention before I give way to my hon. Friend. We still need to refine some pieces of the proposals before us today. I shall go on to discuss where we are disappointed and where the legislative proposals did not follow the agreement reached at the ECOFIN June negotiations; however, the negotiations are ongoing.

Mark Todd: Am I right in thinking that the author of the origins of these proposals is Monsieur de Larosière, who, as we heard yesterday, is apparently the patron saint of Conservative regulatory policy?  [Interruption.] We can see the gestures being made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who presumably feels as uncomfortable on this as I do. Could the Minister throw light on the authorship?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Certainly the original proposals came from Jacques de Larosière in order to replace the Lamfalussy level 3 committees in respect of the European supervisory authorities.  [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) does not have to make sedentary references to the number or identity of Frenchmen.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was talking about the first part of this package of proposals, which is the European systemic risk board. The body will issue warnings where the risks are deemed significant and recommendations on how to mitigate these risks. The Government strongly support the establishment of the ESRB. We believe it can act as an effective early-warning system, usefully identifying risks in the financial system and complementing the work of the Financial Stability Board and the International Monetary Fund at the international level.

Stewart Hosie: I am happy with the idea of a new architecture and a global system, and I am happy with the ESRB and with the fact that it will issue warnings and take actions. However, one bit is missing from all this, and that makes it difficult to agree whether or not it makes sense. The regulatory framework for the derivatives, the default swaps and the counter-party risk-the technical regulation on the financial weapons of mass destruction-is not yet in place. Will the Minister explain how that will work within the context of the ESRB and the other bits of the architecture that she is describing? That is the missing piece; we do not yet have it.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we do not have all the other directives in today. Today, we are examining the framework that will be discussed at the ECOFIN meeting tomorrow. There will be opportunity to discuss further-if the European Scrutiny Committee so wishes-those other directives that are still going through.

Stewart Hosie: I appreciate what the Minister is saying and that ECOFIN will meet tomorrow, but it is difficult to see how to agree on a proposal for a board that will, rightly, issue recommendations and take actions-presumably they will tighten up, weaken, amend or adjust regulation-when we do not yet have it. Can she not give us some kind of clue as to the regulatory framework that will sit alongside this new architecture?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am sorry to say that at this stage I cannot. This is still a matter for negotiation among the other member states; this is about the overarching framework.

Michael Fallon: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, as she is clearly getting into her stride. Before she leaves the subject of the ESRB, a proposal with which she says she is happy, will she say whether or not she is happy that there is no requirement that the non-eurozone countries should be represented on it?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I will come to that later in my speech, but just to satisfy the hon. Gentleman I should say that we do think that there should be sufficient input from the non-eurozone member states. I shall discuss that, because it was a specific question asked by the European Scrutiny Committee.
	The European supervisory authorities will replace the current so-called "Lamfalussy level 3 committees" in banking, securities, insurance and occupational pensions. The new authorities will have enhanced roles and tasks, with the aim of improving the quality and consistency of regulation and supervision in the EU.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Minister confirm that these micro regulatory authorities will not have supervisory powers over national authorities? That assurance was given by Lord Myners in evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee, but it has been slightly altered-or certainly weakened and diluted-notably when the Minister responded to my debate in Westminster Hall. Can she get back to the original position and give an unconditional undertaking that the new authorities will not have supervisory authority over national supervisors or individual firms?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Our negotiating position is that the supervisory authorities will have absolutely no authority over individual firms, and that their only power over supervisory authorities will be in cross-border disputes. That will be our position going into the negotiations tomorrow.

Mark Hoban: As I understand it, a representative of one of the supervisory authorities can sit on the college of supervisors. Does the Minister think that that is appropriate, given that that could also lead to the ESAs having some impact on the supervision of individual firms?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We are clear that none of the bodies being set up under this legislation should be able to impact on the supervision of individual firms. Credit rating agencies are the only exception, as we did not consider that they posed a fiscal risk.

Mark Hoban: But, as I understand it, the European securities market authority will have jurisdiction over clearing houses. Will the Minister bring that up at ECOFIN tomorrow?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I do not want to pre-empt or second-guess the ECOFIN negotiations that begin tomorrow. Our line is that the authorities will have no direct powers over firms in emergencies and that there will be no direct EU supervision of Community-wide entities. The authorities will certainly not be able to conduct day-to-day supervision of individual firms. That is the line with which the Chancellor will go to ECOFIN tomorrow.

Stewart Hosie: The European Scrutiny Committee report says on page 34 that the purpose of establishing a system of financial supervision is, among other things, to "raise supervisory standards" and to impose "binding mediation". Will the Minister confirm that that "binding mediation" will apply not to single firms but to national systems?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The binding mediation will apply to national supervisors in cross-border disputes, not to individual firms.

Michael Fallon: Will the Minister give way?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: May I get a little further with my speech? I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman then.
	We think it is important to have more effective rule-making and enforcement, as that will increase the efficiency of cross-border firms operating in the EU. The authorities will be required to conduct supervisory peer review to ensure consistently high standards. As I have said, they will also have powers to mediate in disputes between supervisory authorities. The Government support the authorities having those roles, as a way of improving the quality and consistency of supervision and enhancing stability.
	I give way to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon).

Michael Fallon: I am most grateful to the Minister. She is handling a range of questions, but what is her red line in this matter? Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the European banking authority proposal would give it direct power over individual financial institutions, with the result that it could issue an instruction to Barclays or HSBC. Is that a red line for the British Government, or not?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The red line for the British Government is that these authorities should not have direct powers over the day-to-day supervision of national firms, and that is the approach on which we are going forward.
	The Commission has also published an amending directive, which amends 10 existing financial services directives to enable the new authorities to carry out their tasks effectively. Most significantly, these amendments will clarify the areas in which the new authorities can develop technical standards and many of the areas in which they can mediate in cases of disagreement between national supervisors. We believe that those moves will improve the quality and consistency of regulation and supervision in the EU, and they were agreed to by Heads of State and Government at the European Council meeting in June. The ambitions are also supported by the City and, in particular, by cross-border institutions operating from London.

William Cash: The Minister speaks about red lines. Will she exercise a veto when the whole matter is going to be decided by a majority vote?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: This is a package of five legislative proposals. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that four of them are down to qualified majority voting, but one of the items in the package is subject to unanimity. We are going into the negotiations with our red lines and I am sure that the Chancellor will stick to them. Within the negotiations, I am sure that we will get not only what is good for the UK, but what is good for the EU.

Jeremy Browne: Against which countries does the Minister expect that Britain will have to defend its red lines? I am interested to know who is likely to line up with us and who she feels might imperil Britain's interests.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to answer that question on the Floor of the House when the Chancellor is going into negotiations tomorrow. I will not second-guess or pre-empt those negotiations.
	As I said, it was agreed at the June meeting that day-to-day supervision and crisis management arrangements had to remain national, as only national Governments can provide any fiscal support to firms. In the case of credit rating agencies, which cannot have a fiscal impact if they fail, there could be central supervision. As a result, it is clear that there can be no direct European crisis management powers over firms, or other powers that undermine national supervision. Furthermore, it has been made clear that the new framework should not impinge on member states' fiscal responsibilities. We must ensure that member states stick to that agreement.
	I am sure that hon. Members will have noticed that, in some areas, the Commission's legislative proposals go further than what was agreed in June. For example, it is proposed that the new EU supervisory authorities could later directly supervise Community-wide entities. That clearly does not respect the June agreement, and the Government are absolutely clear that we cannot accept it, as it could fundamentally undermine national supervision. Furthermore, the Commission's proposals include direct European powers over firms, in particular in crisis management. Such a role could confuse and undermine national crisis management, and it is clearly critical to ensure that Governments can respond quickly and effectively in times of crisis, so that needs to change.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I asked the hon. Lady last month who would appoint the members of these supervisory authorities and to whom they would be accountable-is it the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the Commission, or all three? Given that clarity and certainty are absolutely essential-if there is a credit crunch, we will otherwise get into a huge muddle all over again-will she tell us the exact position regarding reporting and appointment to these bodies?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The ESAs will be accountable to national Governments through the European Council. It is likely that they will also be accountable to the European Parliament. In the United Kingdom, the Financial Services Authority-our nominee-will be accountable in the normal way through its annual report and the Treasury Committee.

David Heathcoat-Amory: And appointments?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I will have to get back to the right hon. Gentleman about appointments. I imagine that that would be a matter for member states, but I hope to be able to get back to him on that before the end of the debate.
	There has already been a lot of discussion and debate about the proposals. Lord Myners has given evidence to the Treasury Committee and to the House of Lords European Union Committee. He also took part in a debate in the Chamber of the House of Lords on 10 November. In addition, the Treasury Committee published a report on the proposals on 16 November, for which I thank it. That insightful report raises a number of issues that are also of great importance to the Government. In particular, the report highlights the Committee's concerns about the legality of the Commission's proposals; the fiscal impact on member states; the Commission's role in crisis situations; and the composition of the European systemic risk board.
	There is widespread interest in the legal issues surrounding these proposals, and the Government are well aware of the complex legal matters involved. Regardless of the technicalities, the Government's overriding objective is to ensure that the new framework can withstand legal challenge. We cannot have legal uncertainty and challenges before the courts, as that could undermine financial stability. We are therefore working closely with other member states and the Council legal service to ensure that the bodies are on a sound legal footing. I know there are questions about the legal basis of the proposals, but let me assure the House that we believe that article 95 is an appropriate legal basis for the regulations. However, we have concerns about matters in which the supervisory authorities can exercise discretion, and in which the Commission is seemingly playing the role of the courts. Both those issues are problematic, but we believe they can be resolved so that the authorities can exercise the useful roles assigned to them.

Mark Field: The Minister has referred to the legal and practical difficulties, but can she tell us how much experience she has had of speaking to practitioners in the field about the precise nature of those problems? Has she spoken to them, or has she just read briefings from the trade body?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I think that the hon. Gentleman probably knows the answer. I have not had discussions with legal practitioners, but my noble Friend Lord Myners, who leads on this policy matter in the other place, certainly has done so, and I have read all the briefings.
	Many members of the European Scrutiny Committee have raised concerns about the fiscal safeguard clause in the proposals. I would like to stress that this is a mechanism that in practice should never be used. The legislation clearly states that ESAs are required to ensure that their decisions do not impinge on member states' fiscal responsibilities. However, alongside that, a process has been set out in the legislation for member states to opt out of a decision made by an ESA, if they believe that it would have a fiscal consequence. We need to ensure that that process is not open to abuse, and that it provides the right protections. The Commission's proposal requires a member state to secure a qualified majority vote in support in Council, in cases in which the ESA decides to uphold its decision, despite the member state raising a fiscal case against it. We are not convinced that the balance is right, or that it provides sufficient assurance to member states. We are therefore working with EU member states, many of which share our concerns, to improve the safeguard clause.

Michael Fallon: Again, I want to be clear that that is a red line for the United Kingdom, and that the fiscal safeguard will not be subject to majority voting.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: For us, the red line applies to the fact that none of those authorities should have the power to make any impact on national Governments' fiscal responsibility. We do not believe that the fiscal safeguard should be used, because there is an overriding legal principle that the decision should not impinge on member states' fiscal responsibilities. Again, that will be part of the negotiations, and as I have said, many other member states share our concern, so we hope to be able to make progress.
	Concerns have been expressed about the speed of reforms, and about the better regulation principles. We must ensure that there is better and more effective regulation, which is based on strong evidence, as well as thorough consultation and impact assessments. It is important to respond swiftly to the crisis and make sure that we can secure harmonised standards and put better regulation in place quickly, but that should certainly not be at the expense of high-quality regulation. It is more important than ever to ensure that our response is evidence-based and achieves the desired end. We continue to encourage the Commission to adhere to best practice and to conduct consultations and impact assessments on regulatory proposals for the regulation of markets and firms. That high-quality evidence base will also maximise the influence of the EU on the international stage with our international partners and better enable it to attain international regulatory convergence. It is crucial that better regulation principles are instilled in the bodies themselves. The Government have been arguing strongly for this in Council, and it continues to be a top priority.
	Concerns have been raised about the Commission's role in determining a crisis situation. Alongside other member states, the UK is questioning the Commission's role in some areas of the proposals, including its ability to decide unilaterally where there is an emergency situation. We have already made progress on this issue and there is now broad consensus among member states that the Council should have a strong role in activating any emergency powers.

Christopher Fraser: Will the Minister draw to the attention of the House precisely what is meant by emergency circumstances? That is not clear from what she said or what we have before us today.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I would suggest that emergency circumstances were the sort of situation that we faced last year, with the possibility of the entire global financial system going into meltdown. I will get clarification, however.
	I turn to some specific clarifications that the European Scrutiny Committee requested, following the Committee's correspondence with Lord Myners on these issues. With reference to the Government's progress in ensuring a balanced representation of non-eurozone member states on the European systemic risk board steering committee, there is broad consensus in Council that there should be an appropriate representation of non-eurozone member states on the ESRB, and in particular, that there should be five, rather than three, additional members of the steering committee, and that two of those should be from non-eurozone central banks.
	The need to ensure an appropriate balance of eurozone and non-eurozone members was one of the key issues stressed by the Chancellor during the discussion of these proposals at the ECOFIN meeting of 2 October. The Government are therefore confident that this position will be reflected in the Council's discussions with the European Parliament as we go forward.

Mark Hoban: Will the Minister make it clear that balanced representation will be in the legislation, rather than in some side agreement reached in Council?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The aim would be for that to be in the legislation, but it will form part of the negotiations. The important thing is that we get the result-the representation of the non-eurozone member states on the steering committee.

Mark Hoban: But is a decision in Council, but not on the face of the legislative proposal, binding?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I cannot answer that question. I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman. It is my understanding that if we can get that as a Council decision, that will be what happens, but I will get back to him with the precise legal basis for that.
	The improved voting thresholds in the ESRB general board reflect a building consensus in Council that the voting mechanism for decisions taken by the ESRB's general board, as set out in the Commission's draft regulation, is not appropriate in all cases. Instead, there has been considerable support for voting by a two-thirds majority, rather than a simple majority, for adopting a recommendation and for agreeing to make a warning or recommendation public.
	As I said, there are outstanding issues and questions, but this is a positive agenda for reform, which the Government-

William Cash: Does the Minister note that one of the questions that we put was whether, in the context of the architecture to which I referred earlier, the Government are satisfied not only with regard to the voting issue, but with regard to the relationship of the European Court of Justice to these bodies? That is crucial, because it is at that point that the question of the exercise of real power is determined. Can the Minister answer that question, please?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman back to my previous answer, which was that we have concerns about the legislative proposals, where the Commission appears to be taking over the role of the courts, because the judgment as to whether member states are following European law must be a matter for the European courts.
	We are putting in place a new framework to improve the quality and consistency of supervision and regulation. Such a framework will better protect consumers, help prevent financial crisis and improve efficiency for firms. I look forward to hearing the contributions of hon. Members in the debate.

Mark Hoban: We welcome the chance to debate these important proposals. They will have a significant impact on the regulation of the financial services sector, and they have the potential, notwithstanding the Minister's comments, to impact on our fiscal policy. Let us be clear, however, that we are here only because the European Scrutiny Committee called for a debate on the Floor of the House. The Government have not conceded these proceedings voluntarily. They did not set aside this time because they felt it important to debate these issues; they were required to do so by the Committee. It asked for a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House, and that signal should not be underestimated. The Committee has done so on only a handful of occasions during the lifetime of this Parliament. The issue is clearly important, and it is right that we have this debate in advance of the ECOFIN meeting tomorrow.
	We recognise the importance of cross-border supervision. We have had arguably the first global regulatory crisis, and we need to learn lessons about the need for greater co-ordination and standards of supervision. However, despite the global nature of the crisis, the bill for failure was picked up by national taxpayers, and we need to bear that in mind as we debate the subject. The UK boasts a leading global financial centre. The importance of global co-ordination should not be understated, but, when considering the issue, we must engage much more vigorously in the debate. That is not about stymieing attempts at reform, but about working towards a more effective and stable system. That will benefit the UK and the wider European Union, and we recognise that some changes are necessary to resolve some issues that the financial crisis threw up.
	However, we find the Government's approach passive and complacent. They need to be proactive and strategic, rather than complacent and tactical. Such an approach represents a misunderstanding of the importance of what is at stake, and the consequences of the Government's rather casual approach could be significant.
	We have seen the consequences of that approach already. This year, we had the publication of the alternative investment fund managers directive, and there has been widespread criticism of it and its impact not just on hedge funds and private equity, but on other forms of funds affecting other European countries.

Mark Field: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on the alternative investment directive. Is not the bigger criticism of it, however, that it simply betrayed, among those in the European Union who are attempting to introduce it, a lack of understanding about the role of asset management and, indeed, its non-role in the credit crunch and financial crisis that we have faced over the past two years? Whatever other problems there may have been, hedge funds and private equity have not been responsible for any systemic problems that that directive and others have tried to address.

Mark Hoban: That is certainly a factor, and as the directive has proceeded through the European Parliament more and more people have recognised the widespread impact that it could have on a range of funds, whether they are used to fund the building of wind farms in Germany or mortgages in the Baltic states. The directive is wide-ranging, and people have not understood its impact. My particular criticism is that the Government caught on to that rather late in the process. Other Governments were lobbying prior to the publication of the directive earlier this year, whereas our Government seemed to be slow on the uptake. It was only once the industry got its teeth into the directive and considered its impact on London that the Government rode in behind.
	We saw the same pattern arise with the appointment of Monsieur Barnier as a European Commissioner. The deal was done some time ago. The French appeared to give way and allowed Baroness Ashton to become the High Representative, but there seems to have been a quid pro quo: a Frenchman would take over as Commissioner for the internal market. The Government woke up to that quite late in the debate, and there was a flurry of spin and media activity in the days leading up to his appointment, but by that stage it was too late. Again, tactics took priority over the strategic approach that is needed to protect London's financial interests, and the same point applies to the documents that are before us today. The Government must be much more zealous in protecting Britain's interests and those of the financial services sector, which is an asset not just to London but to the wider European economy.

William Cash: My hon. Friend knows that I have the gravest concerns about all this. Does he appreciate that although the trade associations-I mentioned the Association of British Insurers, the British Bankers Association and the Investment Management Association -have effectively endorsed the idea of this supranational authority, there is also a political dimension, because whereas they may have a multinational view about these matters in the global context, in terms of the City of London a political judgment has to be struck? That is why I personally take the view that we ought to resist this all the way down the line. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, people in the trade associations take a globalised view based on multinationalism, whereas when one deals with people in individual firms on the ground, one finds that they frequently take a very different view. Does my hon. Friend have any comment to make on that?

Mark Hoban: My experience in this role over the past four years is that there is a wide divergence of views in the City about the role that Europe should play in the regulation of financial services. Several trade associations take the view that there should be a harmonised rule book, for example, but they are also concerned about the pace at which the reforms are progressing and whether a proper process is in place. We have seen that in the way in which the alternative investment fund managers directive has been dealt with. The devil is always in the detail. We need proper scrutiny of these proposals, and people need carefully to think through their impact. The problem is that when others seek to use their political agenda to shape regulation in Europe, it is sometimes to the detriment of our own sector based here in London.

Mark Field: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says, but does he not agree with the thrust of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash)? If, rather than consulting often self-appointed market bodies notionally representing dozens or hundreds of members, one asks the market practitioners who have to deal day to day with the impact of much of this legislation, which may derive from our own Parliament as well as from Europe, one finds that they are much more concerned and can see the disadvantages. It could almost be said that one of the benefits of being in opposition is being able to talk to market practitioners instead of hearing from on high about the various benefits that such new legislation, directives and regulations may have.

Mark Hoban: That reflects the argument that I was making. People support these moves in the abstract, but when it comes to concrete proposals there is a great deal of opposition to individual aspects. Later, I will discuss some of the areas where there may be greater protection in London than that specified in directives, and that is in our interests. Would that protection be removed as a consequence of harmonisation?
	In the whole legislative process that has emerged as a response to the financial crisis, it seems that a great deal is happening in haste and not much has been well thought through. There is a danger that we are being pushed to sign up to directives and proposals very quickly without people fully thinking through their impact. The particular concern about this set of proposals is that there seems to be pressure from the Swedish presidency to agree the package at tomorrow's ECOFIN meeting and at the Council meeting later this month. Even trade bodies are concerned about the haste with which this process has been dealt with and they fear that not enough time is being spent on working through the detail.
	We should recognise that if we want to get this legislation right, we need to spend more time working through the details instead of being forced to comply with artificially imposed deadlines that relate to whoever is in or out of the presidency at any point in time. Indeed, the Treasury Committee said in its report that
	"it is better to be right than quick",
	and went on to state that
	"even on a cursory examination there are serious problems with the Commission's proposals which need to be dealt with before the Council agrees to the draft legislation and it moves on to the next stage."
	The European Scrutiny Committee stated that
	"we are disappointed that Member States, in the ECOFIN Council and in the European Council, intend to continue to press on precipitately with this legislation and that the Government seems content to acquiesce in this haste."
	Will the Exchequer Secretary indicate whether the Government are content, if no agreement is reached tomorrow, to push the conclusion of this debate into next year in the interests of better scrutiny? The ESC continued:
	"As we have already said, rushed legislation proves all too often to be poor legislation and we would expect the Government to insist that these proposals are properly negotiated to a sensible timetable."
	We must ask why we have been pushed to respond so quickly to the reforms. If the proposals were straightforward and uncontroversial that would be one thing, but as the comments that have been made both by the Minister and in interventions have demonstrated, they are neither. It is not just people in the House who believe that. The Association for Financial Markets in Europe has stated:
	"The rapid timetable is driven by the political commitment to have the ESRB and ESAs in operation by the end of 2010. It does however, particularly at a time when an unusually large number of policy proposals are under development in a range of areas in the wake of the financial turmoil, place great strain on the ability of policy-makers and interested parties to give the Proposals proper technical scrutiny. The time pressure is intensified by the fact that a series of Proposals whose content interlocks have been made, and are being scrutinised by the Council and the European Parliament, on a staggered timetable."
	There is a strong message from inside and outside the House that proper time should be spent scrutinising the measures, rather than their being rushed through to meet an artificial deadline.

Jeremy Browne: I understand and agree with the hon. Gentleman's point that it is better to get the right solution and take time over arriving at that conclusion than to react in haste and potentially reach the wrong conclusion. However, he seems to be slightly at odds with some of his Back Benchers who, I get the sense, do not wish us to arrive at any conclusion at all. In other words, they reject the entire process, whether it is arrived at in haste or at great leisure. Is that his interpretation? It is worth exploring the real difference between those who wish to reach the end point after sufficient consideration and those who do not wish to reach the end point at all.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman is being a little hasty in reaching any conclusions about a discrepancy in views between myself and my hon. Friends. I have just talked about the timetable, but there are other matters that I want to discuss that are related to the substance of the proposals, on which we have a great deal in common. It is not just about the time scale and process, it is about substance as well.
	I wish to touch on a point that the Exchequer Secretary glossed over, but which has caused a great deal of concern for both the ESC and the Treasury Committee-the constitutional nature of the powers in question. There was a debate in the Treasury Committee about whether the powers to be granted in the proposals before us have a legal basis. In written evidence to the Committee, Stuart Popham and Simon Gleeson of Clifford Chance wrote:
	"The ESAs will not have power to take decisions or to make rules-European law requires that these powers are reserved to the Commission, and we believe that this could not be changed without an amendment to the EU treaty. The attempt to give the committees the power to review the issue of whether individual national regulators have correctly implemented EU legislation appears to be an attempt to stretch this point."
	As we have seen, though, the ESAs will issue binding directions on compliance with EU law and on mediation between two regulators. If the power is to ensure compliance with the law that already exists, it is hard to see of what use it is. Is it a discretionary power or not? As it is presented, it is not clear, and the Commission itself seemed to allude to the same issue in the context of potential interference with the fiscal responsibility of member states when it stated:
	"Incorrect application of Community law cannot be justified by financial grounds. The remainder of the Authorities decisions are either not directed to individual supervisors, or non-binding, and therefore by definition cannot have fiscal implications."
	In other words, member states must surely already be compliant with EU law, even on fiscal grounds, so no decision made by the ESAs could have fiscal consequences. Once again, therefore, we must ask what the power is for exactly.
	The confusion does not end there. Mr. Gleeson pointed out in his evidence to the Treasury Committee that if the power was found to be discretionary and was subsequently deployed, the European Court of Justice would be likely to consider any such directives
	"ultra vires to the treaty",
	and they would, as Stuart Popham put it, "cease to exist."

William Cash: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point relating to competing sovereignties. The European Court asserts its primacy over not only our laws but our constitution. I am glad to say that the leader of our party has affirmed that there will be a sovereignty Bill to deal with some of those questions. Does my hon. Friend agree that where there are such competing sovereignties, and it is in our national interests to do so, as it is in the case before us, it is essential that, if we come to power, we justify and carry through the leader of our party's commitment to the repatriation of legislation to ensure our economic competitiveness, using our sovereignty Bill?

Mark Hoban: I suspect that my hon. Friend is pushing me to go further than I am inclined to go at this point, but I want to explore the legal argument, because there is an issue to do with the basis of the powers. I know that he is an expert on the subject, so he may want to contribute to the debate on that point later.
	Article 95 of the treaty, as currently drafted, will be used to create the ESRB. That article usually deals with matters relating to internal markets, and it operates under qualified majority voting, but if any action arising from the provisions requires treaty amendments, there will not be that capacity, and confusion and paralysis will reign. Article 105 will
	"confer upon the ECB"-
	European Central Bank-
	"specific tasks concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions and other financial institutions with the exception of insurance undertakings",
	but of course it has an exception relating to insurance. Article 105 does not use QMV, and so allows for national vetoes. It is not clear where primacy sits, and what voting mechanism is appropriate.
	There is an alternative basis for the powers in article 308-a residual power that could be used to set up the bodies. However, that requires unanimous decision making. Using that power would make more sense, if it turned out that decisions made by the ESAs were likely to be ultra vires to the European Community treaty if made under article 95. However, I gather that use of the power under article 308 would require amendments to a treaty, which is something that Governments and the European Commission might be reluctant to undertake at the moment. That gives the impression that article 95 is being used to set up the powers more for convenience than because it would give the documents a proper basis.
	Let me turn to the detail. It is important that we tackle the timing and the legality of the arguments. The Minister rather glossed over those points, and in her winding-up speech she should give the House more clarity about the robustness of the arguments on the legal basis on which the new authorities are to be established.
	We want measures to be taken to improve the quality of supervision and co-ordination across Europe, but we do not want that to impinge on the regulatory and fiscal sovereignty of individual member states. As the Chancellor wrote of the new regime, in his letter of response to the de Larosière proposals,
	"it would not supervise individual banks...leaving that to national authorities...given that arrangements for resolving difficulties in these firms remain a national responsibility."
	That is the dilemma that we need to resolve, and that is the principle on which the proposals will be judged in all parts of the House.

David Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is quite right that we must guard our fiscal sovereignty, but is he not underestimating the confusion that will be caused if there is ambiguity about exactly where these bodies reside in Europe? We got into a terrible muddle in our own country when supervision fell into a black hole between the Treasury, the FSA and the Bank of England. There will be more confusion when it falls into another black hole between the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers. We will have a six-sided black hole, if that is not a contradiction, whereas we need certainty and clarity for all market operators. Even if the self-imposed test on fiscal sovereignty is passed, does he not think that we are creating immense confusion and ambiguity about the whole process of supervision of a vital national interest?

Mark Hoban: Indeed, and that is the point that I was trying to make about the legal basis for the powers that will be used to set up these authorities. It appears to be a matter of some debate whether the appropriate legal basis is being used. If that is not clarified properly, I can foresee a situation in which the moment these authorities seek to make the first difficult decision that an institution or member state does not like, challenges in the European Court will be resorted to. At a moment of crisis, when we want prompt action to be taken, the fact that there is no legal certainty-or no appearance of legal certainty-will lead to chaos. That is why I think that it is vital that legal certainty on these powers is sought before the proposals are approved. We can debate whether the powers are right or wrong, but there must be legal certainty to avoid that chaos. The Government have a responsibility to the financial services sector in London and more widely across Europe to ensure that there is that legal certainty.
	Let me go back to fiscal sovereignty. As I said, the proposals create a new European systemic risk board and the June ECOFIN conclusions said that its function would be to
	"Define, have access to and/or collect as appropriate, and analyse all the information relevant for identifying, monitoring and assessing potential threats and risks to financial stability in the EU that arise from macro-economic developments and developments within the financial system as a whole".
	It has limited powers that follow on from that analysis. It has the power to issue risk warnings to regulators and policy makers, and it can recommend legislative action where appropriate. It cannot insist on those actions being followed up-it purely has the ability to recommend. I do not think that that should cause us any concern at the moment. We are in favour of bodies on a regional or global level analysing and understanding risks and presenting their thoughts on the consequences of those risks.
	The three new authorities replace the existing level 3 committees and will cover the same areas of banking, insurance and securities regulation. Whereas the ESRB will lack a legal personality, the ESAs are explicitly given one. Just like the ESRB, the new supervisory authorities will research, collate and comment on relevant micro-prudential issues. They will also be responsible for developing binding, harmonised technical standards. If an individual member state is in breach of those standards, and an issue cannot be resolved, one of the supervisory authorities might make a final decision via binding mediation.
	We can see already that we are in danger of breaching the red lines that the Chancellor initially laid out. This is another example of the rather laidback approach that the Government have adopted to their policies. Back in June, before ECOFIN, Lord Myners said that
	"the Government does not agree with the Commission's proposals to give a European body powers to change national supervisory decisions, or powers over individual firms".
	That is exactly where we are in danger of heading. The ESAs will be able to act on both areas through binding mediation, in the case of disputes between national authorities under article 12, and the binding power to ensure that firms and national authorities comply with EU law when the Commission declares an emergency situation under article 10.

William Cash: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis, but the danger is that, because of mission creep, there will be increasing control-the practitioners instinctively feel that that is coming. Those who are promoting this whole superstructure, including the Government and Lord Myners himself, would hand over the City of London, lock, stock and barrel to a supervisory authority that will insist that it has its way. That is the problem and it is completely contrary to proper market conditions. That is where the problem lies for the City, and it will end up in competition with New York instead of working across the Atlantic as we should do.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point about mission creep when it comes to these authorities, and he has been very critical of trade associations so far. However, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe has identified that as a potential issue. It is concerned that ESAs will go beyond technical issues and stray into policy. It said:
	"It will be important to ensure, in the context of the 'Omnibus' Proposal, that technical standards do indeed respect the 'technical'/'policy' distinction, and in particular that they do not inappropriately constrain supervisory judgements by national authorities that are provided for in the sectoral Directives."
	It also argued that checks and balances would be necessary to prevent such mission creep. There is therefore widespread recognition of the risk of mission creep, and delay is important so that we can work through the issues and say exactly what these new bodies can do, what constraints there will be on their activities in practice, and what their modus operandi and their approach to their mission will be. We also need to know what resources they will have to enable them to meddle in the activities of individual national supervisors. We are in danger of reaching a political agreement at ECOFIN and the Council without really thinking through the practical implications for London as a financial services centre. That is the challenge for the Government. Will they sign up to this tomorrow, or will they argue that the consequences have not been properly thought through? I hope that the Minister will respond to that challenge in this debate,
	The Minister adopted a contradictory approach. She said that the final proposal must respect the red lines agreed at ECOFIN in June, but at the same time she seemed to accept that the supervisory authorities could make a decision that had an impact on our fiscal responsibilities. She was content that a safeguard mechanism would be in place to allow us to appeal if we thought that that was happening. However, we cannot on the one hand say that there must be no fiscal impact and on the other argue for improving the safeguard clause in article 23 by tightening up the wording. We either have red lines or we do not. The Minister needs to be much clearer about that. Lord Myners, when considering the disparity between the legislative proposals and the Council's recommendations, said:
	"the legislative proposals appear to go further than what was agreed by heads of state at June European Council".
	We are now being promised improvements to the fiscal safeguards, but can the Minister tell us what forms these might take?
	There is also a challenge to the Government red line in dealing with emergencies. At the moment, the document is drafted so that it is the Commission that decides what constitutes an emergency and the ESA can override the national supervisor subject to the appeal mechanism set out in article 23. We know from our recent experience in the financial crisis that it is at moments of crisis and emergency that the interests of national Governments and taxpayers are paramount, but we seem to be allowing a situation in which the ESA, in a crisis determined by the Commission, could overrule the judgments of national supervisors and have an impact on fiscal responsibility.
	We want the Government to maintain the red line and stick to their principle that there should be no impact on the UK's fiscal position. However, yesterday in the Financial Services Bill debate, when the Chancellor made his opening remarks, it sounded as though he was watering down the red line. He seemed to be going for a situation in which not the Commission but the Council declares a crisis. However, that still allows the European supervisory agencies potentially to override national supervisors, which I do not think respects the red lines agreed in June.

Mark Field: I agree entirely with the last passage of my hon. Friend's speech. I also agree, with foreboding, that the red lines to which the Exchequer Secretary referred are likely to be largely illusory. Does my hon. Friend agree that a more sensible approach to constructing red lines-if we are to go down that path-would be to say that regulation should be dealt with at the European level and the supervisory element entirely at a national level? The overlap is obvious between a European and national supervisor. The supervision element should be entirely in national hands. That would be a sensible red line, if one is to be fought over tomorrow and in the negotiations in the months and, potentially, years ahead.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. If regulation is dealt with at a European level, there is the risk that in the process of the binding mediation outlined in the documents, in a conflict between how supervisory authorities interpret the regulations, the ESAs could intervene, through that mediation, and create another fiscal impact. This is a complex area. I do not think that the Government have got their red lines in the right place, and they are certainly not defending them as vigorously as we would have hoped, given the conclusions reached in the June Council.
	The Labour-dominated-as Opposition politicians like to refer to it-Treasury Select Committee report made itself very clear. Paragraph 84 stated:
	"We recommend that the Regulations provide proper protection for the fiscal position of Member States. It needs to be far stronger than the current provisions. We do not understand why the Commission has departed so far from the ECOFIN conclusions of June this year and we insist that UK Ministers do not agree to any of these provisions until the fiscal sovereignty of the UK is protected by a veto."
	That is a very robust statement and recommendation by the Select Committee. Two distinguished Committee members are here this afternoon, and I am sure that they will stand by it. It is difficult to see, however, how the Government can say that their red line has been recognised in the architecture if they do not achieve that veto.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that it is necessary to move quickly during a crisis, and that is absolutely right-this is not just a fiscal protection. Is it part of his argument that changes to the prospectus directive, for example, could hinder the issuing of shares and raising of cash in an emergency? The capital requirements directive, for example, is split between the European banking authority, in relation to the implementation of Basel II, and the European securities and markets authority, in relation to non-prudential issues. Is that the kind of confusion that he thinks might delay quick action in an emergency?

Mark Hoban: Actually, my point goes back to the exchange between me and some of my hon. Friends about the legal basis of the powers, which is not clear and about which there is some doubt. That could create confusion as people seek to test whether the pronouncements of the ESAs are valid in the context of European law. That is where some of the confusion will potentially emerge.
	Let me move on to another aspect on which I am not entirely sure that the safeguards in article 3 are sufficiently robust. As I mentioned earlier, the ESRB has the power to propose changes in response to risks that it identifies in the European economy. It can propose actions, but it does not have a mechanism for enforcing those recommendations. The problem that I see in how the various bodies interlock is that although the ESAs have the power to ensure that supervisory authorities follow the recommendations of the ESRB, that is not covered by the safeguards in article 23. I wonder whether the Minister could assure the House that the safeguards set out in article 23 will be extended to cover situations in which the ESAs seek to implement the recommendations of the ESRB.
	I intervened on the Minister about the composition of the steering committee of the ESRB. I made it clear then that we want to ensure that the final document contains some recognition of the fact that there should be two bank governors on the steering committee who come from non-eurozone countries. The Minister said that she would find out how any conclusions reached in the Council could be made binding.
	There are a number of other issues that we could touch on in this afternoon's debate. I have already raised a couple in interventions on the Minister, such as who will be responsible for supervising the central clearing houses. There is also concern about the scope of the European securities and markets authority. There have been a number of representations from institutions in the City of London that are concerned that the authority's remit could impact on the takeover directive, on which there has been a hard-fought campaign to reach consensus across Europe. It appears that the takeover directive falls within the scope of the European securities and markets authority. There is concern that the authority might seek to move away from the consensus that has been achieved on the directive in respect of takeovers in the UK and undermine the work that the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers does. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify whether she expects the Government to call for the European securities and markets authority's remit to be restricted to exclude the work on the takeover directive.
	I have talked about the concern in the City about whether the European securities and markets authority's role in fleshing out some of the technical detail on directives might be extended to cover policy issues, but there are other areas of concern. For example, shareholders in the UK receive greater protection when making substantial transactions here than they do elsewhere in Europe under existing directives. Will there be sufficient flexibility in the new regime for shareholders to continue to benefit from that additional protection?
	Let us look at what happened in Spain in this financial crisis. Spain consciously diverged from the capital requirements directive by allowing dynamic provisioning in its banking sector, which many would argue safeguarded it against some of the problems seen elsewhere in the European financial sector. Would the European banking authority's powers prevent a central bank from imposing those additional requirements on banks in its country? If it did, the Spanish banks would have been in a detrimental position compared with the current status that they enjoy, and central banks would have less discretion to protect depositors and taxpayers.
	In conclusion, there are a range of issues in the proposals before us that require further scrutiny. They also require the Government to adopt a tougher negotiating position at ECOFIN tomorrow and at the Council meeting later this month. I have to say that I am not optimistic about the Government's chances of insisting on their red lines, because they have repeatedly left debating these matters until too late in the process. They have too often been slow in getting involved in discussions about how these directives should be shaped when they are going through the processes in the Commission, leaving it until the directives have been published before engaging in the debate.
	These legislative proposals have gone beyond the position agreed in the ECOFIN meeting in June and the later Council meeting, which I believe has happened because the Government have not been sufficiently proactive in engaging in the European debate. That is why Conservative Members say it is important for a senior Treasury Minister to spend as much time as necessary in Brussels and other European capitals to strengthen our opportunities to engage on these matters earlier and more effectively. We would have Ministers engage in the debate in ECOFIN, making sure that Britain's case is strongly and clearly made. We need to bolster our operations in Brussels and ensure that more Treasury civil servants are working on European matters. We also need to ensure that the regulator continues to engage vigorously in the debate. As these new European authorities are set up, it will become even more important that we are part of that set-up and arguing for the interests of London as a global financial services centre.
	I think the stakes are high. The Government appear to be disengaged from the European process until the very end. Rather than engaging throughout that process, they come to life only then, trying to change already drafted documents rather than influencing the drafting. The Government's approach always appears to be about tactics, not about strategy. The financial services sector in London is a global success story, but I think the Government, through their cavalier and insouciant approach, are in danger of putting that success at risk. By opposing the motion today, we are sending out a very clear signal that that approach needs to change and will do so only with a change of Government.

Mark Todd: I burdened the House with quite a lengthy speech yesterday and I hope not to detain it quite so long today. There are some linkages, as I indicated in my earlier intervention on the Minister. First, we need to be grateful that Her Majesty's Opposition now regard a French banker as a useful resource for advice for their proposals on regulation, instead of an opportunity for rather stereotypical cursing. We can see some evidence of progress in policy formation there.
	The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) challenged me on the possible payback that Mr. de Larosière might secure from his endorsement of Conservative policy, but we may have seen it in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Instead of questioning the architecture and philosophy of the regulation that came from the relevant group, the focus of his speech was on process and timing. I am certainly going to touch on those things, but I will also address some philosophical concerns about this approach and the direction in which we are heading.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way before he proceeds to the main points in his speech. It appears from the final comments of the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) that the Conservative party not only speaks highly of proposals from a French Minister, but that it wishes a Treasury Minister to take up a more or less permanent residence in Brussels in order to pursue UK interests. It seems like a welcome change that we have seen from the Conservative party today.

Mark Todd: Let us leave it for the electorate to decide what they make of Conservative policy, its origins and its allies. I certainly listened with attention to the speech of the hon. Member for Fareham. I have to say that Conservative politicians speaking from the Front Bench about Europe always have a somewhat tightrope-like approach, particularly when the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is in his place behind them, trying to prod them in other directions. The speech was an interesting attempt to adhere to a tightrope in spite of provocations from time to time.
	Let me go to the fundamentals of this issue. The previous model of what constituted not European regulation but advisory frameworks in this policy area was focused on what I would regard as the useful purpose of enabling information and practical experience to be exchanged between regulators in the various marketplaces.
	Not everyone feels that talking shops have value. For instance, the Governor of the Bank of England has made a number of entertaining and, one might say, dismissive remarks about de Larosière's thoughts on this area of European intervention. When questioned about the future function of the European systemic risk board, he said:
	"Whether this body turns out to be a mere talking shop or a useful talking shop, in terms of an exchange of views and ideas being generated, remains to be seen-that is up to the people who sit on it. We will see. I go to vast numbers of international meetings and I cannot claim that most of them live up to the billing that one would hope. Nevertheless, as I said, hope springs eternal-cautious, moderate hope for this committee-and we will do our best to try and raise the level of debate."
	There is certainly evidence that some of the international gatherings that are organised to discuss even the more practical issue of regulation may have relatively little value. However, let us take a slightly more optimistic position than that taken by the Governor of the Bank of England, and suggest that these forums for the exchange of information and experience may have some value. What I have puzzled over is the question of what added value results from an extension of that role of information exchange and experience exchange into an activist regulatory framework. That is what the proposals before us represent, not in their fully evolved form-as I shall explain later, I believe that we are moving along a ramp towards a rather higher level of intervention than we see before us now-but certainly in the early stages of establishing a European regulatory framework in the relevant marketplaces.
	I have no principled objection to such an extension as an idea-unlike the hon. Member for Stone, who certainly would-but I should like to see a demonstration of the practical added value that would result from the additional layer of regulatory intervention. I have not seen a case proven which shows that the establishment of some European regulatory framework will cause our consumers to be better protected, our taxpayers to be better protected-from chaos-or the individual trading entities within our nation states to be better protected.

Stewart Hosie: Is it not the case that we will probably end up seeing the European regulatory framework body negotiating with the United States, Japan and others? That, surely, will be the level at which global negotiation will take place, as in the case of trade talks. Is this not an interim step in that direction? Rather than 200 countries negotiating and concluding on a framework global regime, a European body will conduct negotiations on our behalf.

Mark Todd: That is the model for trade negotiations now, and it would certainly be a possible logical outcome of this approach. My constituency does not contain a financial services community-people make things there, and I am glad of that-but financial services constitute an important part of our economy. I respect that position and would wish to defend it, but I do not think that that would be the best means of defending it.
	I am not persuaded that the case has been properly made, but if we accept that the intellectual basis of these changes is a wish to improve market functioning to ensure that we have a single market that works more effectively, and to increase the resilience of that marketplace-in other words, if the aim is the protection of the various entities to which I referred earlier-I am not sure that that will result from the actions we are taking in agreeing to the establishment of these agencies. I would like that case to be set out in practical terms-what does this mean, and how will it deliver added protection and added value in this critically important sector of our economy?
	There is also the issue of deciding both how we are to proceed and how these bodies will operate once they have been decided on and set up. The decision-making process is somewhat strange. I devoted some time to this issue in Treasury Committee discussions. We have by far the largest financial services sector in Europe, yet in the decision-making framework and processes of these bodies-and they will be making decisions-our voice appears to have no greater weight than any other member state. We therefore face some risk of having to spend a significant amount of our time seeking to persuade regulators and their representatives from member states with tiny financial services sectors of the merits of our arguments in horse-trading discussions on technical matters that are largely irrelevant to them, but which they nevertheless have a say in and a vote on. One has to wonder about the merits of that.
	Let me relate an exchange I had on this subject with Lord Myners in the Treasury Committee. I pointed out the rather different degrees of importance of the financial sector for various member states, and he said:
	"I think we would expect our voice and credibility to be reflective of the significance of the financial services industry. Of course it is also worth remembering that we have consistently made the case that European legislation and proposals must be evidence-based and must be the consequence of proper consultation with an impact assessment. We have seen things come out of the Commission which do not meet those criteria".
	I hinted to him that I had heard a suggestion that one of those things was the venture into hedge fund regulation, and he said, "Absolutely." I asked whether that exemplified the problem of constructing European responses in sectors where one nation state has virtually no industry at all and another has a very large industry. He replied:
	"One would expect those nation states which have the greatest economic interest in this area to be the leaders of debate and discussion, as indeed you would over aspects of European policy such as fisheries or agriculture."
	I have spent a considerable chunk of my parliamentary life debating fisheries and agriculture, and I do not find great reassurance in such a reference to the decision-making processes on those matters within Europe. What we have, therefore, is a hope-or an expectation, to refer to the word used by the Minister-that Britain's voice on these matters will be heard loud and clear. I must admit, however, that I would like more than a hope, and even more than an expectation, that we will be able to protect our interests when decisions are made.
	I had expected to hear some of the points I am making from official Opposition Members, but such is their new love-in with Mr. de Larosière that perhaps they have tempered their thinking in this area. We shall see.

Mark Hoban: This is exactly why we have said in our paper on financial regulation that we want to have more engagement-so we can lead that debate in Europe. The problem at present is that the Treasury is absent from leading the debate, which is why we have ill-thought- through proposals such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred: the alternative investment fund directive.

Mark Todd: That is a slightly slippery response, because that is not the point I was making. I agree that the physical presence of Ministers and their activist role in negotiation is important, but I was addressing the outcomes of such negotiation, even in cases where they are there arguing their case. The hon. Gentleman chose not to comment on that.
	We seem to be heading down a path, and I can see where its origins lie. There was an understandable reaction to financial collapse-I sense a lack of confidence, to some extent, in the Anglo-Saxon models of financial services-and a space opened up for activism at the European level. I can well understand how that arose, but I am concerned to ensure that we limit this progress as far as possible. Some red lines can be drawn, but my worry is whether the lines are really red, or pink. Given the decision-making process, about which we have had much more informed discussion, I am not utterly persuaded as to how hard we will be able to hold to those red lines if others do not endorse our positions, however rationally we put them.
	I want to set out what these red lines should be, although most of them have been mentioned. First, there should clearly be no intrusion into the fiscal responsibility of individual member states. The hon. Member for Fareham quoted from the Select Committee report. Hon. Members may contradict me if I am wrong, but I believe that I strengthened some of that report through our debates, and, thus, I endorse its sentiments. Secondly, there should be no ability-I stress the word "no"-for any of these agencies to intervene over the heads of the national regulator; they should not be able to intervene individually with companies or to direct the role and actions of the national regulator. Neither of those activities is an appropriate function for the individual European agencies.
	Thirdly, I can see no value in setting aside a particular function in an "emergency"-quite how one defines that is another matter-to any of the European agencies. Such an approach appears likely not only to raise the issue of legality, which has been touched on, but, more practically, to get in the way of the urgent action that will be required in many instances. I dread to think what would have happened if we had felt that the most appropriate response to the collapse of the Icelandic banking system and its consequences in the UK was to ask some European agencies how best we should deal with that. Criticisms of how the Government acted in that instance have been made, but I am much more comfortable with having those decisions made by a UK authority in the interests of UK taxpayers and account holders, than with passing the task to a European agency.

Christopher Fraser: The hon. Gentleman therefore surely agrees with me that the word "emergency" is so ambiguous that the Government need to define better its meaning and applications.

Mark Todd: Probably, but I might be even more absolutist, in that I cannot conceive of an "emergency" in which passing the task to a European agency would genuinely add value in dealing with a crisis. The task is to act with urgency in many of these circumstances, and to consult as fast as we reasonably can with others.
	We all recognise that the financial services sector crosses borders, and entertaining one-liners have been thrown into the debate about financial services businesses being global in life but national in death. That is obviously true but, in practical terms, it is individual nation states that must make the rapid responses.
	For all those reasons, I hope that the Government will act with firmness and a clearer philosophical determination about what is in the best interests not only of our financial services sector, important as it is, but of our taxpayers and our nation as a whole. We have conceded some ground already and, although I have doubts about how far we should have gone, I accept what has been done. We should now make sure that any regulatory framework that emerges from this process clearly adds value to the sector. In addition, it must not intrude on the nation state's role in the regulatory operation of the financial services sector, or on a Government's fiscal responsibility to secure the successful rescue of any business.

Jeremy Browne: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on his speech, in which he appeared to be auditioning for the role, in the event of the Conservatives winning the next general election, of the new banger-together-of-heads in Brussels. Whereas the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) made a rather equivocal speech from the Conservative Front Bench, the hon. Gentleman gave us something a bit more robust in respect of defending the national interest. I look forward to his being a GOAT after the next general election, if indeed there is a change of Government, and to watching him enjoy a suitable lifestyle in Brussels while he defends our national interest, with zeal and on a daily basis.
	The backdrop to our deliberations this afternoon-and, indeed, yesterday and for many months-is the huge regulatory and systematic failure of our financial system. That failure has had huge and ongoing consequences and ramifications for our economy, our banking sector and our tax burden. It also led to the enormous deficit that we as a country are continuing to finance, so those who would like to wish away the circumstances surrounding this debate must face up to the fact that we are living now in a situation that is very different from the one that existed a year or two ago. We have to ask some fundamental questions about how we got into this position, and how we respond to it.
	The fact that the UK has the largest financial sector is the main, but not the only, reason why we found ourselves particularly exposed when the system failed. That is why many people in Europe might observe that our representatives around the table in Brussels tomorrow will have as much reason to listen as they have to talk, and that there may be aspects of our performance that could be improved on.
	The widespread enthusiasm for greater regulation is an instinctive and natural response to failure of the type that took place. People feel that we must regulate with more zeal and a greater desire to intervene: I believe that the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Fareham, used the expression "proactivity", and I am sure it is true that we need to be more proactive in that regard, although people mean different things when they talk about regulation. Some want banks to be split up, others want an end to the tripartite arrangement in the UK, while still others fixate particularly on the bonuses paid to people operating in the financial services sector.
	There is a tendency to lump all those concerns together and to demand greater regulatory intervention in the financial services sector, but how we regulate and how fast we should do it remain open questions. The debate in this country is obviously very much alive, as we saw when we discussed the Financial Services Bill yesterday, but the global circumstances of the collapse that we have just experienced are without precedent. The effects of recessions in the past have of course moved from one country to another, but the consequences of failure are more profound now thanks to the greater interconnectivity and inter-reliance of the financial services sector.
	Many people have observed that our status as such a big financial centre proved to be a mixed blessing. As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire noted, the banks located in London were global institutions yet the burden of picking up the bill when things went wrong was national. The problem was that those institutions were so big that it was difficult even for a national economy as large as the UK's to deal with picking up the bill without huge implications for Government borrowing and indebtedness, and the Government's exposure in that regard has had many ramifications.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally crass for the Government to hand over the running of financial services to the EU, and then to saddle themselves with the responsibility for bailing people out when things go wrong? How stupid can you get?

Jeremy Browne: I am not aware that anyone in this debate has proposed that course of action-

William Cash: It is what this is all about.

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman says, from a sedentary position, that that is what this motion is all about, but the nub of the debate is whether that is the case. I shall deal with that in a moment, but we all acknowledge that these enormous financial institutions have tentacles that reach into many different markets. That is why it is appropriate for us to ask ourselves whether the regulatory regime that monitors them should have a similar scope, and a dimension to its activities that reflects the scale and nature of the organisations being regulated.
	Because we have the most advanced financial services sector in Europe and are the dominant players in the market, the proposals before us today could have some benefits for the UK. A market whose general regulation applies the same rules to all European countries could present opportunities for us to achieve greater profitability and wider expansion, as long as there is no improper restriction of our financial services sector. That is important, because regulation must not restrict legitimate competition.
	I believe that people sometimes reach for regulation-in financial services or any other sector-as a way to try and bring about a lowest-common-denominator uniformity. There should be robust competition between institutions, as that will ensure that they are profitable and successful and offer value for money to their customers. There need to be safeguards, and we have to learn the lessons of the massive failure that has taken place, but we must not restrict financial services institutions to the extent that they are unable to compete and develop in a meaningful and beneficial way.
	The point has been made by others, including the hon. Member for Fareham, that the system being proposed has been advanced with great haste. Of course, that is also the view of the Treasury Committee. Its initial report, which was published on 11 November-although that was only a few weeks ago, the report has already been overtaken by subsequent publications-said:
	"While the intention of the new regulations is widely welcomed, there is a great deal of unease about the detail. There is still more unease about the speed with which it is hoped to agree them; the Presidency is pressing for their adoption by ECOFIN at the Council on 2 December. We consider that is far too fast: the proposals will set in place a framework which should last for many decades, and there should be proper time for consideration."
	I do not know whether the deputy Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), will speak about that observation further, but it is a reasonable point. The horse has already bolted, so there is not such a degree of urgency to deal with the risk because, I hope, the chances of a similar failure happening in the immediate future are modest. We are trying to deal with the long-term response to the dramatic failure that has already happened, but there is no great pressure on us to act right now. I share the view of the hon. Member for Fareham that it would be better to spend more time on this and get it right than to try to put in place unsatisfactory measures with great, and perhaps excessive, haste.
	The Government need to take seriously several issues relating to the proposals that will be considered by the EU tomorrow. My fellow Somerset Member, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who is no longer in the Chamber-he clearly lacks my zeal for this subject-asked the Minister about the system for appointing the people who will sit on these regulatory bodies and to whom those people will be accountable. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points. I understood from what she said that while she had some views on accountability, she was less clear about the appointment process.
	The right hon. Gentleman's question was legitimate, not least because, as I tried to suggest in my intervention, we all know that member states have different opinions on the way in which the financial services sector should be regulated. There is widespread suspicion in France about the so-called Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism, and those in France feel somewhat vindicated by the events of the past few years. There is, however, a different consensus in Britain. The three main parties sometimes have more in common with each other than we do with the consensus in other EU member states. It is important that there is transparency in the appointment process regarding who gets to occupy a position and to whom they will be accountable.
	It is also important that the status of the City of London is recognised and not damaged. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire expressed the view that, given that Britain is so dominant in this regard, it would be weird if that was not reflected in our ability to contribute to the deliberations. However, others in the EU might dispute that principle. On that basis, member states that share land borders with non-member states might say that their input into discussions on border security should be greater than that of the United Kingdom, which is in a different position. The hon. Gentleman cited fisheries as an area in which some countries have a greater stake than others. I imagine that Austria, for example, is less preoccupied with that matter than Britain, Spain or France. There are therefore problems with the hon. Gentleman's proposal, but we nevertheless have a clear national strategic interest that the Minister needs to address.
	I agree with those who say that fiscal policy is a matter for member states, in which regard I hope to catch the attention of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). He is right that taxpayers in his constituency and mine, not French and German taxpayers, have financed the bail-out of the banks in the United Kingdom. We therefore have to be confident that the taxpayers whom we represent will not be left to pick up the tab without our having the ability to regulate the institutions that they ultimately have to protect. It is right and sensible that fiscal policy is the preserve of member states, and that should be a settled matter.
	The Minister needs to give greater clarity, perhaps in her winding-up speech, about the interaction between what is proposed and national systems of regulation. If we in this country are to review the way in which we regulate our financial services sector-for example, the Conservative party has radical and far-reaching proposals in that regard-that process cannot be seen in isolation from what is considered suitable on a European scale.
	The Minister needs to satisfy herself on several details during both the European negotiations and her deliberations in London. For example, what are the procedures for data management and security? If the financial services and banking sectors are to be regulated, that will presumably require large amounts of information to be imparted, some of which might be highly sensitive or confidential. It is only right that we should be satisfied that such information will be handled in a suitably discreet and appropriate way. I accept that that point is not the absolute nub of the argument-perhaps it is a secondary issue-but it is important that any system put in place functions effectively. We should not find British institutions, or even British individuals, being put in an unfortunate or undesirable position as a result of malfunctioning European regulation.

Christopher Fraser: We will.

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman says that we will, but I want to safeguard against that. I do not wish to have a disagreement with him-certainly not on this subject-but if we agree a system, it must be robust, and we must test its ability to do its job properly to at least the same extent as if we put a system in place in this country. We do not want to introduce a system with undue haste because of a desire to be seen to be co-operating at a European level and acting with a degree of compromise to ensure that other countries' considerations are taken on board, and then to find that those factors lead to structural deficiency in the mechanisms that are put in place. If such a thing happens, we will come to regret it when the systems are tested to destruction as they step into action to try to respond to a future shock.
	I observe the paranoia in the Conservative party whenever we discuss anything to do with the European Union. There is a belief among Conservative Members that every negotiation in the EU should involve setting out Britain's fears about co-operating with any other like-minded country before going into the negotiations with a determination to protect our position, rather than trying to engage in a sensible exchange with other EU countries. We have a lot of interesting knowledge and many observations to impart, but we might also have interesting things to learn from other countries, because our country has not covered itself in glory. If the Minister starts tomorrow's negotiations by saying that we have lots of red lines because the way in which Britain has regulated its financial services sector has been so brilliant that everyone else had better learn from us, she might find that that is not the best way to reach the conclusion that is most beneficial for Britain.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman betrays a remarkable lack of knowledge about the extent to which the French in particular and the Germans, who are also going for the European bank, have set their hearts, minds and political will on doing as much as possible to ensure that the City of London does not survive as the main centre in Europe. The hon. Gentleman is completely and totally off the wall.

Jeremy Browne: I do not know if I am grateful for that intervention. When I spoke about paranoia about the European Union, I did not necessarily have the hon. Gentleman in mind, although he may have identified with that feeling. There are many good reasons why London should be the financial services capital of Europe, as it offers entrepreneurial dynamism and labour market flexibility, and the fact that we speak English helps. We should not be burdened by regulation. In fact, I made the point, which no one else has made, that regulation should not be a byword for dumbed-down lowest-common-denominator uniformity. It should allow competition and innovation, and in those circumstances we should be confident that London and Britain can do better than other European countries such as France and Germany. I have also advanced the reasonable argument that it would be a mistake to go into the negotiations patronising other EU countries by telling them that they have everything to learn from our regulation of the financial services sector and we could not conceivably learn anything from them, even though the evidence of the past few years suggests otherwise.
	I wish the Minister well, as this is a valid exercise. In a world of global interdependence there is a role for a European dimension. We need to make clear the parameters of that role and where nation states should rightly retain pre-eminence-that has been usefully discussed today. I do not share the somewhat paranoid perspective, in my view, of the hon. Member for Stone and others that any discussion of a European dimension to regulation is inherently bad. There is a role for it, but we must make sure that it is proportionate and that there are clear lines so that we do not have confusion the next time there is a financial crisis about which regulatory systems have which responsibilities.

Michael Fallon: I remind the House of my interests recorded in the register.
	It is not at all clear after 21 minutes of oration from the Liberal Democrat spokesman exactly where his party stands on the proposals, and whether in fact it would not just wave them through. The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) asked for a little more clarity, for safeguards on data protection and so on, but it is not at all clear where his red lines lie. He accused Conservative Members of paranoia, but I draw to his attention the Treasury Committee report on the proposals, which is lying on the Table and which was signed by the two Liberal Democrat members of the Committee. The criticisms that the Treasury Committee made of the proposals were made by all parties in the House, particularly by the two Liberal Democrat Members who signed up to the report.
	The proposals are deeply flawed and damaging to the City of London and Britain, so they must be resisted. In my view, the Commission has gone far beyond the remit that it was originally given by the European Council in June, as the proposals seek to supervise not only the domestic regulators but domestic private financial institutions in member states. They have a dubious legal basis, as our Committee identified and as we have discussed. They would transfer much more supranational authority to the Commission than was originally envisaged, and they remove, in their current form, all the safeguards that the Heads of Government themselves wanted to include to protect their national taxpayers.
	Not only have the proposals been drawn up in great haste, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, but they ignore the work under way in other international forums. Proposals have emerged from the G20, and new work is under way to produce proposals in the Basel committee. Proposals have emerged from Congress with which these proposals, in the end, have to sit, otherwise we may well find that we are once again in the midst of the kind of regulatory arbitrage that got us into difficulty before, as we are dealing with finance houses that are increasingly global in operation.
	In my intervention on the Minister, I pointed out that in the draft as it stands there is absolutely no guarantee that the non-eurozone countries will be properly represented on the proposed European systemic risk board. To me, and I think to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), that should be a red line that applies not simply to the United Kingdom but to other important financial countries such as Sweden that are outside the eurozone. It is essential that the non-eurozone countries are represented on the board, and I hope that when the Minister makes her winding-up speech, she will make it clear that that is in fact one of the Government's red lines and is not simply an aspiration. We should not agree to a proposal to set up the board if it does not include proper representation as a requirement for the non-eurozone countries.
	Another problem is the kind of powers that the ESRB will have. Some witnesses who appeared before the Treasury Committee thought that it would be something of a talking shop, but that is no bad thing. Across the European architecture, there should be some way for the ECB governors and others to meet to discuss the issues collectively-that was the bit that was missing between the ECB and the national supervisory authorities before, and I do not oppose it. Equally, however, our conclusion was that the board may well be more effective than simply being a forum for discussion, and we said that
	"it would be a mistake to underestimate the extent of the ESRB's potential to trigger real effects".
	Again, I should like to hear from the Minister whether it is the Government's position that the board should be more than a discussion group, and that she is prepared to concede that it should have some real influence. After all, as we pointed out, if the three so-called ESAs are set up, their chairmen will serve on the ESRB and I suspect that in time it will become an important forum.
	The Treasury Committee was unsure of the proper basis for the powers that will be delegated to the supervisory authorities. If they have powers to ensure compliance with EU law, that takes them to the very edge of European law. If the powers that are granted to them are new, they are outside the existing powers in the treaties, so the legal basis for those supervisory authorities is extremely tenuous. However, the powers that they are giving themselves are not tenuous-they are very clear. In articles 9, 10 and 11, the supervisory authorities will have direct power to give instructions or directions to individual financial institutions. In other words, the European banking authority could issue an instruction to Barclays bank in the UK, to HSBC, or even to the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is taxpayer-owned. An instruction may be received from the authority that would override other interests, including those of shareholders and taxpayers.
	We need to be much clearer which directives the banking and other supervisory authorities are supervising. We were told in evidence to the Committee that various directives might have to be amended to enable the supervisory authorities to supervise the bodies concerned. Again, before we set up these authorities to supervise other bodies, we should be clear exactly what is being supervised.
	There is also the issue of an emergency situation. It is wrong that the definition of what constitutes an emergency situation should be left to the Commission, of all people. Indeed, as the proposal is drafted, it would simply be for the Commission to decide that there are some "adverse developments" somewhere across the European Union. It can then declare an emergency situation, which triggers a series of new executive powers. That is not the Commission's job, nor is the Commission the right body to do this. The Commission does not have a balance sheet or a direct relationship with the European Central Bank, and it has no interest in protecting the interests of national taxpayers.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Commission, being the ultimate bureaucratic executive and the responsible body-these regulations are about regulatory arrangements and are the highest of legal instruments that must be implemented by member states-is acting in a manner that will inevitably lead to a non-competitive environment, because the Commission itself is basically undemocratic? It is bureaucratic, and all the fears that my hon. Friend has expressed will come about because of the failure of the culture within the European Union to understand that that is the basis on which the Commission operates, and it should not be allowed to do so. The Government are seriously in error and should be condemned for allowing such a situation to come about.

Michael Fallon: My hon. Friend makes his point, again, extremely powerfully.
	I still think that the Commission is the wrong body for the task, and I am somewhat encouraged that in evidence to us, Lord Myners said:
	"I cannot conceive of a situation in which the Commission would be the natural body to be able to formulate a view on what constituted an emergency situation."
	Given that those are the words of the Financial Services Secretary in evidence to the Committee, I assume that that must be a red line for the Chancellor tomorrow. We need to remove any suggestion that the Commission should declare an emergency situation, and ensure that our interests are properly protected.
	My final point is one that has been touched on by hon. Members on both sides of the House-the fiscal safeguard. In the conclusions of the European Council in June, the Council was emphatic, and the Prime Minister repeated the exact wording here in the House, that these arrangements
	"should not impinge in any way on the fiscal responsibilities of Member States."-[ Official Report, 23 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 661.]
	However, we now see in the drafts for all three authorities that if a member state feels that its fiscal responsibilities may be impinged by the powers that are exercised, under articles 10 or 11 it can appeal only to a majority vote of the Council. That is no safeguard at all, when the United Kingdom or another member state can be outvoted after a discussion as to what constitutes an impingement. That is not satisfactory.
	We know that the proposal is not satisfactory because in its justification of the power, the Commission argues that the appeal power should be exercised sparingly. It may be that the Commission does not want any dispute to arise and hopes that such a dispute will never arise. It does not want the power of appeal to a majority vote to be exercised under normal circumstances.
	The other great weakness of the fiscal safeguard is that it extends only to action under articles 10 and 11. It does not extend to article 21 powers, after a warning by the systemic risk board, which may follow from the declaration of an emergency situation by the Commission. All parties in the Select Committee were very clear, as has already been read out to the House, that the veto must be available and must be absolute. I appeal to the Minister to reassure the House that standing behind that veto and ensuring that we are not put in the position of relying on a majority vote will be one of the red lines in Brussels tomorrow.
	I fear for the consequences of these proposals if they go through in anything like their current form. I see a recipe either for endless conflict between the new European supervisors and our own domestic supervisor, the Financial Services Authority, or for the Financial Services Authority to be treated simply as a consultative body-one of the parish councils of Europe, its opinion asked for and then ignored.
	It is bad enough that, through the neglect of its European policy, we have ended up with the future regulation of the City of London now in the hands of a French Commissioner. That will be extended by these proposals so that we are in the hands not only of a French Commissioner, but of a band of supranational authorities. That will be very damaging to London, to the United Kingdom and to the European Union, of which London is such an important financial centre.
	I am depressed by the attitude of the Minister and the Government. Throughout the evolution of these proposals, they have been silent, lackadaisical and complacent. The red lines have kept shifting. The Minister did not mention red lines today. She had to be challenged each time to get out of her what the red lines might be. It was an ill omen that the Government have conceded all three of the top economic jobs to non-British nationals. We need, above all, a Minister who will stand up for British interests in Brussels. If this Minister cannot and this Government will not, they should make way for somebody who will.

Christopher Fraser: It gives me great pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), a person who has proved time and again that he understands the issues and is a wise and sage voice in this debate.
	There is no question but that our financial institutions and the City are undergoing a difficult and challenging time, and there is no doubt that reform of our financial system is necessary. We need better and more effective oversight of the financial services sector, a banking system that properly supports small business, and recognition that the current tripartite system needs replacing. However, any changes made must not come at the expense of the City's competitiveness and ability to innovate.
	Last month the World Economic Forum announced that the City of London had overtaken New York as the world's leading financial centre. That is excellent news. The City's long-term success will play a key role in boosting our economy at home and the wider European economy. Given that the Government have given away the vital role of Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services to France, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and to a politician who has a reputation for stringent protectionism, can the Minister tell the House what assessment has been made of the direct implications of this new appointment for the City of London? It is an extremely important point, which I hope the hon. Lady addresses when she winds up the debate shortly. Does she accept that future growth in this country could be undermined as a result? Why was not the Government's priority to ensure that that Commissioner's job came to the UK, for the reasons that I have just described?
	The proposals before us seek to create three European supervisory authorities with rule-making and binding mediation powers: the European banking authority, the European insurance and occupational pensions authority and the European securities and markets authority. The regulations also establish the European systemic risk board, which will allow for macro-prudential oversight of the financial system, but it is worth repeating some of the Treasury Committee's report, which was published earlier this month and has been referred to many times in this debate. It states:
	"There is a great...unease about the detail. There is still more unease about the speed with which it is hoped to agree them... the proposals will set in place a framework which should last for many decades, and there should be proper time for consideration."
	Does the Minister share the concerns of that Committee? If not, will she admit that the Government are placing the need for new systems of international regulation above the need for careful consideration and impact assessment? Does she envisage the proposals being approved by 2 December, which after all is only tomorrow, as the Swedish presidency has called for? I am not clear whether she suggested earlier that things will go through as planned or whether she was sitting on the fence, because she was not quite clear about what will actually happen. She has a valuable opportunity this evening to outline in more detail what she envisages happening at the discussions tomorrow.
	I am sure I do not have to stress that putting forward without proper examination proposals that have far-reaching and serious consequences for the UK's financial sector could genuinely be detrimental to us here in the United Kingdom. I understand that the Government had hoped to secure a rotating chairmanship of the ESRB, but they failed to do so. Will the Minister elaborate on those negotiations? They are crucial to the way in which we consider the proposals before us.
	Are the Government satisfied that the structural arrangements for the ESRB are in Britain's interest? From today's discussions, I am not so sure that there is a great consensus on that in the Chamber, and the Minister owes it to the House to be clear about that. The Treasury Committee's report also highlighted concerns about the size of the board. What is the Minister's assessment of the Committee's comments in that respect? Does she accept that with more than 60 institutions represented, the decision making of the ESRB will be neither effective nor efficient?
	I have concerns about the capacity of the three European supervisory authorities to give binding technical standards to member states and, directly, to institutions in emergency circumstances. I should like to put to the Minister yet again the question that has been posed several times in the debate: can she be more specific about what will qualify as an emergency circumstance? What safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the powers of national regulators-this is the crucial part-are not undermined? Any decisions that have fiscal implications for the British taxpayer should, without a doubt, remain with national regulators, but it is unclear how that corresponds to the supervisory authority's ability to make binding decisions. I should very much like the Minister to clarify that point to me and to the House this evening.
	Following that, there is a concern that the powers associated with the ESA might run contrary to what is allowed under current EU legislation, so what is being done to resolve those very reasonable concerns? The Minister will be aware that some hedge fund managers and other financial service professionals are moving offshore, to places such as New York and Switzerland, to avoid tighter EU regulations and heavier tax burdens. That has to be worrying news, and the Government must do all they can to ensure that private firms are given the proper incentives to operate in the United Kingdom, albeit ethically and responsibly. That must be taken into account when we consider how we operate from here on in, given what has gone on in the past.
	What is the Minister's response to the news that some private firms are choosing to move out of the UK? That point has not been addressed in the debate, so I hope that she will spend a couple of minutes telling the House her view, because that move has wider implications for the financial centre in the City of London, for the companies dealing in hedge funds and for all the other organisations and companies that serve that industry. That move will have ramifications for employment prospects in the City and beyond as a result. Is she concerned that it will set a precedent, and that further regulation will exacerbate the problem?
	I worry that reform of financial services regulation will harm the UK's financial services sector if it is undertaken without due care and, most importantly, consideration. We must ensure that our economic interests are fully protected and, importantly, upheld, but Ministers have been too slow to defend in Brussels the interests of the City. That was demonstrated neatly by the recent internal markets commissionership, as I have already described. I wait to see how the Government approach the redrafted directive on alternative investment fund managers, and I call on Ministers to ensure that any proposals enhance the UK's financial industry, rather than damage it in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks described.
	As I stated as the start of my speech, the City is the world's financial centre and the UK Government should lead and drive the debate about regulatory reform. So far, all the evidence points towards Ministers taking the back seat. That is the wrong way to go forward in the best interests of our nation and our standing on the world stage.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank all hon. Members for their participation in this debate. There has been a theme, in that the hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser), and others, said that they did not believe that the Government were engaged. I disagree and assure them that the Government have been, and continue to be, heavily engaged at official and ministerial levels. Indeed, over the past months UK officials have consulted on and discussed the key legislative proposals with numerous member states. Those meetings have informed others of our positions and enabled us better to understand our European partners' views. We have strong working relationships and regular dialogue throughout the EU.
	On hedge funds, the alternative investment fund managers directive, which has been mentioned, is a key example of a situation in which the Commission's initial legislative proposal was unacceptable. As a result of significant work by officials and Ministers, however, we have seen considerable improvements to it, and my noble Friend Lord Myners has personally committed a substantial part of his time to achieving a good outcome for the UK on EU directives. He has had useful discussions with many EU stakeholders, including Members of the European Parliament, the Swedish presidency and the incoming Spanish presidency.
	Many hon. Members spoke about the timetable, and we were very clear that national Parliaments needed time to scrutinise the proposals. The Chancellor's view at the October ECOFIN meeting was that October was far too early to sign up to a general approach, but we always said that we would aim for agreement on the complete package by December, and that was included in the explanatory memorandum.
	The timeline was set out at the June European Council. We hope that tomorrow, ECOFIN will agree on the general approach, which will then become the Council negotiating position through the European Parliament. The European Parliament, through its Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, will agree its negotiating position; the Council presidency, the Commission and the European Parliament will identify, if necessary, a compromise position; changes will be approved, or otherwise, by ECOFIN in the spring; and the European Parliament will vote on the agreement. That is the timetable.
	The hon. Members for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for South-West Norfolk, and many others, spoke about last week's Commission appointments. I think that those decisions, and those taken by the European Council, are good for Britain, good for Europe and good for Britain in Europe. We have, in Baroness Ashton and her appointment as High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, someone who gives Britain a powerful voice in the Commission and the Council, and she is the only commissioner to have a key role in the Council, too. As vice-president of the Commission, she will have a central and important role in driving progress across the full range of issues. She will be able to speak up on and have influence over all the issues, including those that matter most to the British public-economic recovery, security and tackling climate change.
	On the appointment of Monsieur Barnier, it seems strange that some Frenchmen are wonderful and some are not. People are happy to quote Monsieur de Larosière but not so happy with Monsieur Barnier. I hope that hon. Members will note what he said in an interview on the radio yesterday:
	"I know the importance of the City. I know the importance of this major financial centre for growth in Britain and the economy of Europe as a whole."
	Stuart Fraser, the chairman of the policy and resources committee of the City of London Corporation, has said:
	"I have every confidence that, together, we can forge a constructive working relationship."
	We believe that in his hearings before the European Parliament, Monsieur Barnier will demonstrate his commitment to valuing and promoting the interests of the City of London as Europe's principal financial centre.
	In addition, Britain will have a number of senior official posts in the new Commission. Monsieur Barnier has asked the President of the Commission, in the course of the next rotation of director general appointments, to appoint an official he knows well and has worked with before-Jonathan Faull. President Barroso has said that he intends to appoint a senior British official to lead work on economic and financial issues in his cabinet. We understand from Monsieur Barnier that there will be a senior Briton in his cabinet dealing with financial services, and that he will want someone who is known to the City.

Christopher Fraser: Will the Minister please answer my question about what assessment she has made of the implications of these new appointments for the City of London? It is all very well giving us the CVs of the different people involved and quotes from other people, but we in this House need to know the Government's view on the direct implications for the City.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thought that that was what I was doing in quoting Monsieur Barnier when he said that he sees the importance of the City of London, not just to the UK but to the EU.
	A couple of hon. Members said that the fiscal safeguard clause appears to be contradictory, because if this is covered in the legislation we should not need an opt-out clause. The whole point is that it should, in practice, never need to be used. It is clearly stated in the legislation that the ESAs are required to ensure that they do not impinge on member states' fiscal responsibilities, so that is not a problem.

Mark Hoban: The Minister makes that assertion, but it is possible for the ESAs to override national supervisors to make decisions that impact on fiscal responsibility, and that member states then have to appeal against. Clearly the Government's red line is not being respected in this area.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Government have a very clear red line in this area. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the clause should not be there at all? We are very clear that the new framework should not impinge on member states' fiscal responsibilities.
	Let me turn to the legal basis and respond to some of the detailed questions on that. On the delegation of powers to the ESAs, the Commission is, as the European Scrutiny Committee has recognised, legally able under the treaty to delegate powers to the new supervisory authorities where it had that power in the first place and where the decision-making powers delegated do not involve wide discretion. We are looking closely at the element whereby, under the current legislative proposal, the supervisory authorities appear to be able to exercise discretion. That is what we have to work through in respect of the legal basis. Clearly, the new framework must be able to withstand legal challenge.

Mark Hoban: If tomorrow's ECOFIN does not reach an agreement that provides that legal clarity, is the Chancellor prepared to defer further discussion until its next meeting in the spring?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: As I said, we are hoping to agree a general approach at ECOFIN. The process is ongoing, according to the timetable that I outlined. We are satisfied that article 95 of the EC treaty is an appropriate legal base for the new European supervisory authorities.
	The hon. Member for Fareham asked whether the ESAs have the power to implement the ESRB recommendations on fiscal impacts. Those recommendations are an early warning system for action to protect financial stability that are addressed to member states, supervisory authorities and central banks. If there were a fiscal impact, such recommendations would not be addressed to ESAs but to member states themselves.
	A question was asked about whether further discussions on proposals would be binding in relation to the European Council. Anything that is included in the final co-decided text will be binding. The text under discussion at ECOFIN is about the Council's position. If the European Parliament disagrees with something, an agreement on the exact wording will take place between the Council and the European Parliament, and at that point, it would be binding.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) asked about the ESAs' decision-making process and whether we will have the same weight as other member states. We expect to exercise significant influence through the Financial Services Authority, because rule making is expected to take place under the weighted qualified majority voting procedure used in the European Council. That will ensure that the FSA has a substantial number of votes.

Mark Todd: My hon. Friend carefully used the same word as Lord Myners in saying she "expects" that to be the case. What if that expectation is not met?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: That is the same question that we have heard all evening. We are going into the negotiations tomorrow to deliver the best outcome for the UK, and for the UK within the EU.
	The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the hon. Member for Taunton asked about the appointment process. The FSA will have the UK seat on the ESA. The appointments of the secretary-general and the staffing secretariat will follow normal EU appointments procedure under the staffing regulations. The chairs of ESAs are voted for by the ESAs themselves from within their memberships. As with members of the European Commission, the appointment will be subject to confirmation by the European Parliament.
	The hon. Member for Taunton asked about information sharing and confidentiality. The information-sharing provisions in the legislation are subject to strict confidentiality requirements. That has been standard practice since the establishment of the single market.
	The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) asked about representation from the non-eurozone on the ESRB. Of course we want representation from the non-eurozone. During the ECOFIN discussions in October, the Chancellor stressed the need to ensure an appropriate balance of eurozone and non-eurozone members. We are confident that that position will be reflected in the Council's discussions with the European Parliament and, as I said, any agreed wording will then be binding.
	We strongly support moves to improve the quality and consistency of supervision to ensure more effective rule making and enforcement, and better to identify risks. We want to be part of an EU playing a greater leadership role in setting global standards and avoiding regulatory arbitrage. However, we need to ensure that day-to-day supervision and crisis management arrangements remain national. I value the contributions that hon. Members have made to the debate, and I am sure that the Chancellor will take note of them in his discussions at ECOFIN tomorrow. I think we all agree on the importance of maintaining our position that this framework must not impinge on member states' fiscal responsibilities, and that there should be no powers to undermine national supervision.
	 Question put.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 256, Noes 188.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House takes note of the following European Union Documents-
	(a) 13645/09, Proposal for a Council Decision entrusting the European Central Bank with concerning the functioning of the European Systemic Risk Board;
	(b) 13648/09, Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on Community macro prudential oversight of the financial system and establishing a European Systemic Risk Board;
	(c) 13652/09, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Banking Authority;
	(d) 13653/09, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority;
	(e) 13654/09, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a European Securities and Markets Authority;
	(f) 13656/09, Commission Staff Working Document-Possible amendments to Financial Services legislation-accompanying document to-
	(i) 13652/09
	(ii) 13653/09
	(iii) 13654/09;
	(g) 13657/09, Commission Staff Working Document-Impact Assessment-accompanying document to-
	(i) 13645/09
	(ii) 13648/09
	(iii) 13652/09
	(iv) 13653/09
	(v) 13654/09;
	(h) 13658/09, Commission Staff Working Document-Summary of the Impact Assessment; and
	(i) 15093/09, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 1998/26/EC, 2002/87/EC, 2003/6/EC, 2003/41/EC, 2003/71/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2004/109/EC, 2005/60/EC, 2006/48/EC, 2006/49/EC and 2009/65/EC in respect of the powers of the European Banking Authority, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority;
	and endorses the Government's approach to setting up a new financial supervisory structure in the EU.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Census

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Dan Rogerson.
	 Motion made, and Question p roposed ,
	That the words in item 1 'connection to the household or accommodation and whether or not an individual return has been issued for that person', item 2, the words in item 3(a) 'and the relationship to each of the previous persons named in the return,' the words in item 3(b) 'in the case of any person named seventh or at any higher number in a return' and 'and to any other person named at a previous number higher than six in the return', the words in item 4 'connection to the household or accommodation,' items 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, the words in item 16 'Whether the person describes themselves as: English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish, British, or any other national identity (stating which)', items 20, 21, the words in item 22(b) 'on a Government sponsored training scheme', items 23, 24, the words in item 26(b) 'the mode of transport used for the longest part, by distance, of the usual journey to work', items 31, 32, 33, 35 and 36 of Schedule 2, and items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule 3 to the draft Census (England and Wales) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 21 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.- (Mr.  Blizzard.)
	 Amendment proposed: (a), at end add
	'subject to the following modification: in item 16 of Schedule 2, after the word 'Irish' insert ', Cornish'.' -( Dan Rogerson.)

Question put forthwith (Order, 23 November) , That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 261.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Main Question put forthwith (Order, 23 November).
	 The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 127.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

European Communities

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement) (Republic of Montenegro) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 21 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved. - (Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Legal Services Commission

That the draft Criminal Defence Service (Representation Orders) (Amendment) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 28 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.- (Mr. Blizzard.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 41.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Legal Services Commission

That the draft Criminal Defence Service (Contribution Orders) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 28 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.- (Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
	That the draft Criminal Defence Service (Representation Orders: Appeals etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 28 October, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.- (Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

International Climate Finance

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13183/09 and Addendum 1, Commission Communication on Stepping up International Climate Finance, a European Blueprint for the Copenhagen Deal; and believes that the Commission's views therein provided a basis for the discussion between the Government and other Member States which resulted in European Union Document No. 15285/09, Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council (30 October 2009), in advance of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen in December 2009.- (Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Question agreed to.

Fisheries

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose-[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not staying for this debate please leave the Chamber quickly and quietly?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of fisheries.
	I am pleased to begin this debate. It seems amazing that a year has flown by since the last annual fisheries debate, although we have had many occasions in the intervening period to debate marine and fisheries matters. Although the year has flown by, in the past 40 minutes or so I wondered whether we would get to this debate, but I am pleased that we are here now.
	This is the second fisheries debate in which I have spoken. It gives me the opportunity to report progress in the past year, which has been quite a significant year. Common fisheries policy reform is well under way, with the Government leading from the front, and we have worked on IUU-illegal, unreported and unregulated-fisheries and international governance. We also got the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 on to the statute book last month. We are the first country in the world to have a single piece of legislation to protect and manage our seas. This debate is also timely, as it always is, in that it allows me to hear the views of the House before the December European Fisheries Council and to look forward to next year.
	However, at the outset I would like to pay tribute-as we always do, and quite rightly-to our fishermen, who face dangers at sea every day, every month and every year to catch the fish that so many of us enjoy eating. I am very sad to report to the House that over the past year 12 fishermen have lost their lives. I know that the House will wish to join me in expressing our sincere condolences to the families and friends who suffered those tragic losses.
	Let me begin with the meat of the debate by giving the usual update on the fishing sector's contribution to the economy. As hon. Members will know, the industry has faced catch restrictions to protect fish stocks. Since 2007, UK landings of fish have declined by 4 per cent., with falling catches of mackerel and herring. However, landings of shellfish have increased by 3 per cent. The total value of landings of fish from UK vessels in 2008 was £629 million, a decrease of 2 per cent. from 2007. Although the value of demersal fish was largely the same, prices for shellfish landings showed slight decreases, particularly, as hon. Members in the areas concerned will know, those for nephrops, a key shellfish species for the UK fleet.
	Exports of fish and fish products had a value of just over £1 billion in 2008, an increase of 3 per cent. since 2007. The industry-a huge employer in this country, along with its associated ancillary industries-provided employment for 12,761 fishermen in 2008. As we all know, the industry also contributes to the local economies and the culture of coastal communities, which is especially important in these times of economic difficulty. It would be remiss of me not to mention also the contribution of sea angling, which is popular in our island nation and makes a significant contribution to the UK economy.
	Over the past year we have been working on many fronts towards a single goal of achieving sustainable fisheries. That has been very much in the news, as hon. Members will know, with the film "The End of the Line" arousing great interest among the press and public alike and causing much debate. Sustainable fisheries are hugely important for our food security. Across Europe, two thirds of the fish that we eat and up to 90 per cent. of white fish are caught outside EU waters. Over-exploitation, illegal fishing and conflicting demands on the marine environment all impact on fisheries' contribution to our food security. That is why we need to look at what we do not only in the domestic arena and the EU, but internationally.

Michael Weir: One of the international issues relates to concerns raised by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation about this year's annual negotiations prior to the European Fisheries Council, and in particular about the catch that the Icelandic fleet wishes to secure and the attitude of the Norwegians, which it says is causing delay in those negotiations. Can the Minister tell us anything about that?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed I can. It is a live issue, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. In fact, I met fishermen this morning and discussed that very issue, among others. Officials and I were in touch with fisheries leaders throughout the weekend, and we continue to be so. It is unfortunate that this year's discussions between the EU and Norway and other non-EU states are more difficult than normal, for reasons that I suspect the hon. Gentleman is aware of, albeit for the right reasons as well. Where we need to take enforcement action on fishing vessels within and outside the EU, it is right that we should do so, but that aspect has perhaps coloured this year's discussions.
	We are actively engaged in those discussions. We want to see a positive outcome, but we remain in live discussion with industry leaders and skippers as they go forward. I pay tribute not only to those stakeholders and the industry, which are engaged in that process as we speak, but to officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Marine Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, who are also out there fighting the good fight. However, it is difficult this year.

Alistair Carmichael: On the subject of the EU-Norway talks, I suspect that one of the sticking points will be the allocation of mackerel quotas. For Scottish fishermen, and Shetland fishermen in particular, that is an absolute red line. Whatever difficulties the Minister encounters, will he please understand that, for the health of that important pelagic sector, compromise could be unhelpful to say the least?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I understand fully the point that the hon. Gentleman quite rightly makes. I am pleased to inform him not only that we are in ongoing discussions trying to hold that line, but we have written in a similar tone to the commissioner.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Minister assure the House that Scottish mackerel will in no way be used as a bargaining chip with Norway for any other fish species?

Huw Irranca-Davies: As I said in my previous answer, that is exactly our position. However, the EU-Norway talks this year and the December negotiations in the EU Council are more difficult than ever. All I would ask from the hon. Gentleman is an element of faith-

Geoffrey Cox: And common sense.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed, and some good sense. We are playing the hand of cards that we have been dealt. We have the red lines that I have indicated and we have written to the Commission. That is the basis of our negotiations, but it is also the basis of the parallel discussions that Marine Scotland and so on are having, so we are arguing exactly the same point as the hon. Gentleman's Scottish National party colleagues in the Scottish Executive. I have to say that things are extremely difficult. However, the undertaking that I would make to him is the same as the undertaking that we have made to the fleet, which is that we will keep a frank dialogue going as the process goes forward. I do not know what the outcome will be, but that is our position.

Bob Spink: I thank the Minister for being characteristically generous with his time. Can he tell us what progress he has made with the EU in discussing the dumping of fish? Dumping is an obscenity that affects all sectors of British waters and is something that we need to stop.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will return to that point in a moment as part of my substantive remarks. However, one thing that we are agreed on across the UK and all the devolved Administrations is that we do not have to wait for common fisheries policy reform to make movements on discards. There are things that we can do right now. Last October-I think it was October, although time does fly-we signed the Aalborg agreement with colleagues in Germany and Denmark. Under that agreement we agreed to pilot the use of CCTV cameras on boats to monitor what is landed in the nets and to try to uphold the principle of landing more fish and killing less, thereby avoiding discards. I would also say that part of our strength and our credibility with the EU is what we have done in the last few years on real-time avoidance of spawning grounds, on the conservation credit scheme in Scotland, on avoiding juvenile stocks and so forth. There is a lot we can do now, but fundamentally-I shall return to this in a few moments-this is an issue requiring extremely radical CFP reform.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Huw Irranca-Davies: If Members will allow me, I will make a little progress, as there are many participants, as always in fisheries debates, and I am sure that many want to speak.
	I was talking about international fisheries and food security. The Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that half the world's fish stocks are already fully exploited and at risk of disappearing altogether. A report by the World Bank, to which I often pay regard, has estimated that at least $50 billion dollars of wealth are lost because of poor governance of the world's fisheries. There is a note of optimism as well, which is the flipside of that report, in that if we can improve the governance and management of fisheries, we can actually harvest more and also protect the marine environment.
	To increase our food security, we are working to improve fisheries governance globally, building awareness of the benefits of well managed fisheries. Over the next three days I am visiting Ghana, partly to deal with forestry, partly to increase the Government's lobbying for Copenhagen, but partly on account of the governance of fisheries. Enabling consumers to recognise that their fish comes from well managed stocks is part of ensuring food security. Supermarkets are increasingly sourcing their fish from sustainable stocks, and initiatives such as the Marine Stewardship Council's "blue tick" labelling scheme are a step in the right direction to help consumers to make sustainable choices. We also have to make sure that our own fisheries are sustainable.
	I was pleased that the House found time to debate the reform of the common fisheries policy on 27 October. I have made it clear that I want the UK to lead the reform of the CFP and I will just quickly recap where we are, as this is crucial. At the European Council of Fisheries Ministers in May, I set out the UK vision for future sustainable fisheries, which places ecologically sustainable fisheries at the heart of reform.
	In September, we published a discussion paper on CFP reform setting out four key priorities. These are fish populations within safe biological limits; a prosperous and efficient fishing industry; recognition of the valuable contribution that fishing makes to local communities; and fisheries management integrated with management and conservation of marine resources. For too long, fisheries issues have been dealt with in a silo, which is to their detriment, as we have seen over recent decades, and to that of the marine environment as well. These issues need to be mainstream and part and parcel of cross-government thinking within the UK and of cross-departmental thinking within the EU.
	With the help of the Marine and Fisheries Agency, we have held meetings around the coast-I say that, but they were also in Edinburgh-to hear local views on CFP reform. Last week, I discussed with colleagues in the devolved Administrations and a wide range of stakeholders the feedback on the discussion paper and the challenges to be addressed. This is helping us to ensure that when the UK responds to the European Commission's Green Paper on reform of the CFP later this month, we are recommending radical but realistic reform. This will include people in the fishing industry themselves taking more responsibility for implementing the CFP; more long-term management to reduce uncertainty for fishermen-too often, we hear fishermen saying that they cannot plan a month, let alone a year or five years ahead when they go to their bank manager; ensuring decisions are based on sound science; and reducing, or wherever possible eliminating, wasteful discards.

Robert Goodwill: What indications does the Minister have from other member states, particularly Spain, that they will support his laudable and sensible aims?

Huw Irranca-Davies: I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his contributions to our previous debate on the common fisheries policy. Several significant states appear to be like-minded and as keen as we are to have radical reform. I have to say that several have different ideas on the way forward, but I believe there is a sufficient body of member nations that are of a similar disposition to ours on the core components of CFP reform. I am hopeful. I know I said it in our other recent debate, but it is not a question of waiting until 2011 and then mulling over what the Commission has brought forward following co-decision and so forth, as it is the next couple of months that are going to be crucial. We have the wind in our sails on this.

Alan Beith: The Minister mentioned co-decision, but it rather seemed as if the Commission was doing its best to bypass co-decision and move before it could become a reality, when the direction we need to move in is one in which fishermen's organisations play as full and constructive a part in regional management as they want to, because they are the best people to do it.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The right hon. Gentleman raises another aspect of co-decision that I have touched on-trying to find a way, and we think there are ways, of devolving real responsibility where the buck stops. The buck does not stop only in terms of fisheries management, because it stops with fisheries and marine management, involving those people who I have consistently argued will be the best for long-term management of that marine environment, namely fishermen themselves. I think that there is a real appetite for this.
	We recently had a two-day session at the Inter-RAC conference, when the regional advisory councils were brought together in Edinburgh a month ago, and there was almost unanimity on this issue. That meeting, and others, have been attended by officials from the Commission as well, who have spoken about the legal difficulties but with some optimism that it could be done. It is now down to us, with the support of the industry and people with ideas and models, to advance those ideas rapidly. That is what we are set on doing.
	One issue I am concerned about, as I said last year, is that of small coastal communities around the UK. I understand the value of fishing to these small, often remote, coastal communities: it is more than simply fisheries and the economy; it is their way of life, their livelihood and also a huge issue for their cultural heritage. It is also part of the UK's heritage as an entity. We need to find ways of supporting vulnerable communities that depend on fishing.
	One of my priorities this last year, in difficult times, has been putting the inshore fleet on to a more sustainable footing, which has not been without difficulty. We have decommissioned 65 vessels. On the back of that decommissioning, which was linked to licence capping-not without controversy-we have directly released quota back into the under-10 metre pool. We introduced the licence capping scheme to keep fishing for quota stocks at current levels.
	We have also set up the SAIF-sustainable access to inshore fisheries-project through close working between DEFRA and stakeholders in fisheries management, the fishing industry and fishing communities. This is not driven purely by fishermen themselves; our argument with SAIF was always on the basis that the issue of fisheries needs to be integrated into regional development, better marketing and extending the line of production so that it is not simply a matter of extracting the raw materials but receiving the end-benefit as well. All that is relevant to the SAIF project. There is an advisory group, which has done some excellent work, bringing together expertise from the fishing industry and beyond to help to drive this work forward.
	We are also using the European Fisheries Fund to help our fishing industry to secure a sustainable and profitable future. In 2009, we have offered grants totalling £43 million across the UK for projects ranging from major harbour improvements in North Shields and extra safety gear above the legal requirements for individual boats to Marine Stewardship Council accreditation.
	One pan-UK project that I know Members will be interested to hear about is the Royal National Lifeboat Institution man overboard safety system, which enables the RNLI to track vessels and alert their monitoring system if there are difficulties. That could be crucial and I remind hon. Members that I opened the debate with the issue of lives lost at sea. This sort of innovation is something that could really help in the future. The system also includes personal safety devices that alert the skipper if a crew member goes overboard. The system has already saved lives at sea and we hope that on the back of that investment, as many as 1,500 units will be in use by the end of 2011.

Alistair Carmichael: We are discussing a matter that probably affects every fishing community. I declare an interest as a member of the RNLI national council. Does the Minister agree that, regardless of the number of initiatives, the real challenge is to convey the message to the industry? No matter how many devices there are in the market, if they are not used by the industry they will be of no use to anyone.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is right. I think that the work being done on the ground and-let me give credit where it is due-through august publications such as  Fishing News, which seems to run stories about these devices every other week, is very necessary. Members of Parliament can also play their part by hammering the message home when they are out speaking on the portside. It is gaining attention, but there is much more to be done if we are to make a real difference.

Andrew George: The Minister mentioned the SAIF project and, in particular, the impact of certain regulations on the vulnerability of the inshore fleet and coastal communities. Can he reassure us that special areas of conservation will be imposed by Natural England in a constructive manner, and that Natural England and the industry will ensure that not just the marine environment but the viability of fishing communities is protected?

Huw Irranca-Davies: Special areas of conservation and special protection areas are designated through the European marine habitats directive. Socio-economics are not a factor, and in that regard this debate differs from our debate on marine conservation zones. I am pleased to say, however, that before the proposals were submitted for consultation they were subjected to a period of pre-consultation discussion with fisheries leaders to ensure that there were no unnecessary distractions or scare stories. Projects such as this may occasionally displace certain activities, and we need to work with the fisheries industry to ensure that that is recognised. Natural England is very aware of that, as is the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Michael Moore: Let me add to the tribute that is always paid on occasions such as this to those in the RNLI who put their lives at risk on behalf of our fishing communities and so many others, year in, year out. Like, I am sure, many other Members, I joined a local lifeboat crew on a training mission, and it was a real eye-opener: it made me aware of the dangers that those crews must confront.
	The Minister has spoken of the sustainability of smaller fishing communities. I represent many such communities in Berwickshire. Does the Minister accept that, as well as wishing to unite the fishing and marine environments, we must not lose sight of the need for financial sustainability for those communities? I know that-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been making an exceptionally long intervention, and I am sure the Minister is now able to answer it.
	I warn Members that Back-Bench speeches will have to be limited to eight minutes, because time is running out and a great many Members wish to speak. Although interventions add to the debate, Members who wish to catch my eye later are now intervening, and there is something not quite right about that.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to cut my remaining remarks short. However, I want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) about the sustainability of communities and the fleets that are part of those communities, because it is relevant to a vital part of the debate.
	As we implement common fisheries policy reform, we need to engage in a frank discussion throughout the devolved areas about how we can deliver a prosperous future-let us scrap the word "sustainable" for the moment-for widely variegated coastal communities that have different types of vessels and experience different aspects of isolation and remoteness. I think that part of the solution is not protectionism per se, but the willingness of Ministers to stand up and say how vessels and fisheries can be made more profitable, how they can produce better harvests, and how fishermen can own production from the point at which the fish are landed to the point of marketing.
	I have used this analogy before, and I am sorry that it comes from my own back yard, but we should bear in mind what has been achieved in the marketing of Welsh lamb. Ten years ago, Welsh lamb producers were producing only cheap carcases from the top of the Welsh hills. Now they represent one of our biggest success stories. They have taken command of the line of supply all the way to the supermarket in a co-operative manner, and have added value. Some of the fisheries in the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman and others are high-quality mixed fisheries which should not be selling at bog-standard prices-not that there is such a thing-to whoever comes in. There should be a much cleverer way of owning the profits resulting from that supply chain.
	As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, many other Members wish to speak. Let me do what I said I would do, and deal with some of the other aspects rapidly. I mentioned illegal fishing earlier. I am pleased to say that we have taken a leading role on that, and are making good progress. A European Union regulation that will come into force next month introduces new rules on imports and exports of fish and fish products to and from the EU, making it more difficult for illegally caught fish to enter the EU from non-EU countries. We have been working closely not just with importers and exporters but with nations that will be affected, including developing countries. We are trying to work with those countries to encourage them to engage in better governance and to tackle illegal and unregulated fisheries so that they can take advantage of entry to the European market.
	The UK is also leading the way in protecting commercially fished species. Action is needed urgently if bluefin tuna is to be commercially sustainable. We have publicly supported Monaco's proposal to give this species the highest protection possible under the convention on international trade in endangered species. As a result of the international pressure, and with the strong support of the United Kingdom, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas demonstrated at its annual meeting its willingness to take tougher measures to protect bluefin tuna. However, we shall keep a close watch on whether the measures are implemented quickly enough to conserve this iconic species.
	We have been working hard to protect sharks, skates and rays, which are in serious decline. We ensured that the Council's conclusions on the European Commission's shark plan of action, agreed in April, were strong, clear and robust. We are proceeding with work under this plan of action ourselves, funding scientific research that will help us to protect and manage those threatened stocks. The UK has made a bold decision to increase the protection offered to sharks by banning the removal of shark fins at sea by UK-registered fishing vessels. Any sharks caught by UK vessels will now have to be landed with their fins attached to their bodies, so there is now no risk of wasteful shark finning.
	The UK is also dealing with the incidental catch of seabirds in fisheries operations. Every year many seabirds die unnecessarily, and that is seriously affecting some seabird populations. Internationally, we are working through the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, and we are putting pressure on regional fisheries management organisations to reduce by-catch. We are playing a leading role in championing seabird protection in Europe by challenging the European Commission at the November Council meeting to introduce an EU seabird plan of action.
	A major theme of our work is integrating fishing with other marine activities. I have mentioned the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, with which Members will be very familiar; I thank them for their support in putting it on the statute book. It establishes a new system of marine planning. Along with the devolved Administrations, we have published high-level marine objectives to which we have all agreed, and which will feed into the marine policy statement that we are developing to guide the marine planning process under the Act. For the first time, we will be planning all the activities in the our seas in a properly integrated way.
	The Act introduces better licensing for marine developments, and the conservation of marine biodiversity through marine conservation zones. Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee have set up four regional projects, which are doing extremely well. The conservation zones will help us to deliver our commitments under the European Commission's marine strategy framework directive, which requires us to achieve "good environmental status" for our seas by 2020.
	The Act also creates the Marine Management Organisation, which will be the Government's delivery body in English waters and UK offshore waters. I have appointed the chairman-designate, and staff from the Marine and Fisheries Agency, which is being subsumed into the Marine Management Organisation, are already moving to Newcastle-upon-Tyne in preparation for the vesting of the organisation in April. In order to put this to rest, I want to put it clearly on the record that, contrary to speculation in the regional press, we have measures in place to ensure that levels of service are maintained during the transition. The MFA is currently recruiting new members of staff for its headquarters, to replace those who are not relocating. The first two groups of new recruits have already completed training in London and are now working in Newcastle. More new staff will begin work over the coming months, complementing the experienced staff in the 18 offices-which we often forget about-all around the UK coast. So it will be business as usual.
	At the local level, inshore fisheries and conservation authorities will ensure that we have an integrated approach to our marine resources. They will replace sea fisheries committees, and they will modernise inshore fisheries management in England. They must seek to balance the social and economic benefits of exploiting the sea fisheries resources of their districts with the need to protect the marine environment from, or promote its recovery from, the effects of such exploitation. They will draw on local knowledge to solve local problems through local decision making. Following consultation, I have decided that there will be 10 inshore fisheries and conservation districts. Last month, we brought together members and staff of the sea fisheries committees to discuss how the new authorities can best respond to their new duties, using the achievements of the sea fisheries committees as their springboard.
	Having sprinted through my speech in order to leave time for other contributions, I hope Members will agree that over the last year we have made significant progress towards achieving sustainable fisheries and integrating fishing with other marine activities. We have moved forward in protecting our marine environment, and progress on common fisheries policy reform and other initiatives are good news for fish stocks and fishermen. Although there will be difficult choices in the coming year, we have firm foundations on which to build. I look forward to hearing the views of Members.

Richard Benyon: It is a great pleasure to speak in my first fisheries debate as the spokesman for my party.
	I welcome this important debate, and the opportunity to turn our full attention to the serious issues that face our fishing industry and the health of our seas. With the December European Union Fisheries Council and its negotiations for the 2010 quota allocation fast approaching, this debate is most timely. Today, the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament met, and on 14 and 15 December the Minister and others will be taking part in the Fisheries Council. It is also good to see so many Members present with interests in coastal Britain, the fishing industry and related matters such as angling, which is an extremely important activity for so many people.

Andrew Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that tourist destinations such as the Isle of Wight could benefit from some joined-up thinking in respect of commercial fisheries and policies that affect sea angling?

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is clear to me from my visits around coastal Britain that we can learn a lot from other countries, where activities such as recreational angling, which I am sure we will hear a lot about in this debate, are integrated much more with tourism. In Ireland, for example, on the approach roads to coastal ports there are signs advertising not only hotels but boat hire, tackle shops and so forth. The industry there is much more integrated. This also has an impact on the fishing industry, in which so many people are involved. We can learn a lot, and we can do a lot to try to make these industries more integrated.
	This year more than ever we are debating fisheries during uncertain times for the UK fishing industry. At present, the UK pelagic fleet is facing uncertainty as international negotiations over mackerel with the EU, Norway and the Faeroes continue to drag on, while the white fish sector continues to be squeezed by reduced quotas and days at sea. Moreover, the implementation of marine conservation zones, and the formation of the Marine Management Organisation and the new inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, is under way.
	Before I continue, I would like to take this opportunity to join the Minister in paying tribute to our fishermen, who do a very dangerous and increasingly difficult job catching the fish that end up on our plates. In the last 12 years, 120 UK fishermen have died at sea-51 in the under-10 metre sector and 69 in the over-10 metre fleets. Fishing remains one of the most dangerous jobs, and while we talk on a political level in this debate, it is important that we remember that the realities at sea affect not only livelihoods and communities, but the lives of thousands of people. I am also indebted to many fishermen and others in coastal communities for the time they spent with me as I travelled around coastal Britain seeking solutions from those who live and breathe the issues we are discussing. I also wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), who did a lot when holding the post I now occupy. He is a hard act to follow.
	The most recent figures show that there are some 12,761 fishermen in the UK. About 80 per cent. of them are regular and the remainder are part-time. The total number of fishermen is down by a third since 1997, with the catching industry in the UK landing about £645 million-worth of catches, which can result in £800 million to £1.2 billion-worth of economic activity. Behind every fisherman and vessel there is a fishing community, with about five onshore jobs-down from 10-for every fisherman. While much of today's debate will relate to fishermen, we must remember the shore-based jobs as well.
	In the past, this annual debate has been limited in scope. We should remind ourselves that the health of our seas is a national concern. I think many of us who were involved in the passage of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 were taken aback by the amount of organisations and ordinary people who lobbied us on that Bill. The Co-op's customer polling showed that a vast number of people across the land-not just in coastal Britain-are now taking an active interest in the health of our seas. If we add the 1.3 million sea anglers, we realise how important a national issue this is.
	Consumers have a key role to play in the future of our fisheries. Through the choices they make in supermarkets, they can support innovative schemes such as the Marine Stewardship Council accreditation scheme, which has genuine potential to help achieve a sustainable future for our fisheries.
	UK household consumption of fish continues to increase. The amount of money spent on fish by consumers jumped from £1.96 billion to £2.57 billion between 1996 and 2005, so this issue has an impact on our food security as well as our economic security. However, while the consumer demand for fish rises, it is no secret that the UK's fisheries are struggling. Dwindling fish stocks and a patchy understanding of the overall state of stocks, overcapacity, wasteful discarding, mismanagement of quota, top-down micro-management, and a common fisheries policy that even Commissioner Joe Borg has described as
	"inefficient, expensive and too complex"
	have all served to deepen the woes of UK fisheries and the industry they support.
	Of course, when debating the future of our fisheries, we cannot simply look at the industry. A more holistic approach must be adopted that takes into account the fact that fisheries play a vital environmental, as well as recreational, role, with UK waters housing 50 per cent. of total UK biodiversity, and recreational sea anglers contributing £538 million to the economy and supporting 19,000 jobs.

Bob Spink: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that three years ago the Conservative policy was to get out of the common fisheries policy because it is so disastrous, but a U-turn was performed by his current leader. Is his leader minded to do another U-turn and actually help the fishing community by getting out of the CFP?

Richard Benyon: I am not going to waste my breath going down this long avenue of discussion, as we can address it on another occasion and we are currently talking about the fishing industry. If I ever find myself in the lucky position of holding the office the Minister present occupies, I will put all my energies into pushing at what I believe is an open door in Europe, in the light of the green paper that the European Commission recently published. I will talk about that shortly.
	I look forward to the day when Parliament can debate fisheries in a positive and upbeat fashion, rather than approaching the industry as one that seems, usually through no fault of its own, to lurch from one crisis to another. How much better it would be to take this opportunity to applaud the industry for sustainably harvesting the seas in a way that contributes to a healthy product that is much needed for our food security and our national well-being. That is a future to which we can all aspire.
	I wish to speak about not only the industry but the marine environment. I am of the opinion that those two strands are not at odds: they are two sides of the same coin, with fishermen playing a fundamentally important role in the achievement of a sustainable future for UK fisheries. As I have travelled around fishing communities, I have been struck by how many fishermen are the sons and grandsons of fishermen, and by how many want their sons and grandsons, in turn, to go into the business. The concept of stewardship is alive and well in coastal communities, and we in Parliament must do all we can to support it.
	I cannot help but feel that the use of a sweeping term such as "the UK fishing industry" is misleading in some way. The UK fishing industry houses a diverse range of interests that could not be more different in the way they operate and even in the species they fish for. The UK is home to a diverse and varied fishing community, ranging from recreational sea anglers and small independently owned inshore vessels to large commercial vessels backed by producer organisations. The industry is home to the inshore, offshore, under-10 metre and over-10 metre fleets, as well as the trawlers, pole and line vessels and producer organisations. More diversity could not be housed in one industry. One of the most useful statistics I have been given is that 51 per cent. of the UK catch is landed in three ports, which means that 49 per cent. is landed in 280 ports. I want to make sure that those 280 ports remain viable, and that the people who support the fishing industry in those communities can have an industry of which they can be proud.

Michael Weir: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Does he agree that fishermen need to be consulted on changes in the marine environment, particularly in respect of offshore renewables, about which many fishermen in my constituency have serious concerns? I have put them in touch with the developers and their concerns are being addressed, but it is important that fishermen feel part of that negotiation and do not have things imposed upon them.

Richard Benyon: I understand entirely what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I have not given the Scottish marine Bill the same detailed examination that I gave our marine Bill, for obvious reasons, but I can say that the concept of marine spatial planning-although that term is ghastly, it is important-was vital in the English Bill. Fishermen should be involved in that decision right from the start. There is much in terms of marine conservation and marine renewables that can work together if things are done in the right way.
	Unfortunately, it is not just our use of language that has failed to reflect the diversity I was just discussing. More worryingly, the approach taken to the management of our fisheries has, to date, failed to take into account the diverse range of interests and issues confronting us. A micro-managed approach to fisheries has meant that for too long we have been trying to push square blocks into round holes, forcing the whole industry to conform to over-centralised regulation without taking into account the difference among its constituent parts. As a result, fishermen are struggling to survive in some areas, whereas there is latent capacity in others; and there are shockingly high rates of discard of certain species of fish and dwindling stocks of others, as well as disproportionate allocations of quota between sectors.

Gary Streeter: On discarding, is my hon. Friend aware of a voluntary trial in the west country by south-west trawlermen? They are experimenting with increased mesh sizes and changing their gear to try to reduce the number of unwanted fish that are caught, and early reports indicate that there has been a 60 per cent. reduction in discards. Is that not the sort of bottom-up, voluntary approach we should be encouraging?

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, because that is precisely the point I am coming on to make. The Minister touched on this issue, but I believe that much more can be done to empower fishermen to be the solution, rather than being seen by too many people as the problem. The scheme that my hon. Friend outlines is an absolute model for management in the future. I shall discuss why that is so important and why it remains my intention to see it work in the future.
	I will take this opportunity also to pay tribute to the Scottish fishing industry. I have been impressed by what I have seen in the way of real-time closures, the conservation credits scheme, the technical measures that have been adopted and the serious approach taken to sustainability responsibilities that the fishermen themselves have implemented. Scottish fishermen must not take all the praise, because a lot of good work is going on in England-in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere.
	It is clear that the current system of quota management is not working. It has served to encourage discarding and has driven many fishermen out of business. This Government have repeatedly stumbled over quota allocation-for example, distributing quota among the 10-metre and under and over-10 metre fleets in a completely disproportionate and haphazard manner. That has resulted in the 4,833 10-metre and under vessels receiving only 3 per cent. of the national quota, compared with the 96 per cent. that goes to the over-10 metre fleet, which has about 1,500 vessels. As I have said to the Minister before-he wants to corner me on this-I am not in the business of impoverishing one sector to the benefit of another, but even those running large producer organisations say to me, "If you get into government, for goodness' sake do something about the under-10 metre fleet in England and Wales." That is because it has for too long suffered from the completely disproportionate sharing of the cake.

Bill Wiggin: Next time my hon. Friend is discussing quota allocation with the Minister, will he find out exactly how much of the UK quota was unused in any one year?

Richard Benyon: The issue of latent capacity, which my hon. Friend raises, is fundamental to the resolution of this problem, and I shall discuss that in a moment.
	A further example of not quite getting it right is the somewhat unusual idea of a "cod quota lottery" for this year's remaining under-10 metre area VIId cod, which was recently proposed by the Marine and Fisheries Agency. The scheme proposes that rather than the remaining cod quota being split between the 183 cod catcher vessels in area VIId, 36 vessels would be chosen at random in a lottery draw to receive the allocation of quota between them. I have a copy of a letter from the MFA explaining the scheme. It is dated 20 November and it states:
	"Applications for the draw are invited now and that list will be closed on Thursday November 26th."
	On the basis that it probably took three days for the letter to arrive and for fishermen to respond, it is extraordinary to think that that might be a proper way to allocate this kind of quota.
	If the idea were not bizarre enough, I discovered that no consultation was made with the inshore sector about the lottery. It is being sold as a way of making the allocation of cod quota in area VIId "fair to all", but in the fishermen's opinion it is doing the exact opposite, creating infighting and a completely unlevel playing field in the sector.
	When I meet fishermen up and down the country I hear the same story of the reality of fish stocks not being reflected in quota. We absolutely must underpin quota allocation with science, but that science should be informed by the fishermen as well. Partnerships between scientists and fishermen are a great step forward and a genuine opportunity to obtain coherent data on fish stocks that would, in turn, allow us to manage our quota more effectively. I hope the Minister will do all that he can to encourage those partnerships and gain a better insight into UK fish stocks.
	On one of my visits to the east coast, I was made aware by a local fisherman of a scheme called the environmental responsibility fishing project, which was abruptly cancelled last month. The scheme took 30 under-10 metre vessels, removed restrictions on what they caught and allowed them to land all of their catch. Apparently, the scheme's purpose was to give the Marine and Fisheries Agency a better indication of what levels of stock there were in a particular area.
	The boats were allocated 2 per cent. of total allowable catch, but they ended up catching around 20 per cent. because of the amount of cod in that area. They finished catching cod in late May, but at the beginning of November, just as the cod season was about to begin, they were told that the scheme was cancelled. They were given 500 kg of quota a month, which most of the vessels were catching in a day. Naturally, there was considerable concern among the fishermen about how to make a living in the period up to the next quota year.
	It is my understanding that the fishermen involved in the scheme got no warning that the experiment was going to be stopped. If there is a theme here, it is that fishermen are not being consulted when they should be. Many had to invest considerable amounts of time and money in getting sustainable gear for selective fishing, but they cannot now pursue those methods as they are not in possession of any additional quota. I understand that pilot schemes have to be stopped if they are not working, but the apparent lack of consultation with the fishing industry is more than worrying.
	I am under no illusions: if I were to be in the Minister's place after the election, I would not have a magic wand to wave to solve the many problems that the industry is facing, but the industry is in crisis and the issue of quota allocation is complex. A quota system that suits one sector of the fishing industry might be completely unsuitable for the other. It is therefore imperative that we move away from a blanket approach and that we look at quota not only on a fishery-by-fishery basis but also in terms of vessels.
	That is a prime example of how the CFP is not working at the moment. Most of our fisheries are mixed and micromanagement from Brussels simply does not work here. Innovation, localism, devolved powers-those are the way forward. Whatever we have to do, there must be a fairer way of dividing up quota than the one that we have currently.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has spent a commendable amount of time talking about the 10-metre and under sector. As I am sure he has found out from his travels north and south of the border, in many cases it is that sector that supports the village-based industry. Would he be willing to extend the localism that he is talking about as far down as those components of the village-based fishing industry?

Richard Benyon: I absolutely am giving that assurance to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because I think that localism is best. I shall come on to talk about the over-10 metre sector as well, but I am encouraged by the direction of travel in the debate. The Minister has also touched on the fact that there is a fair amount of agreement here. There is an opportunity to devolve power so that fishermen, even at a really local level, can take control of the industry. The inshore fisheries and conservation authorities may be the appropriate vehicle by which they can reverse the burden of proof so that they can be trusted to deliver genuine change and police themselves. I shall deal with that briefly in the short time that I have left.
	Discards are a further symptom of the failure of the current system of quotas, as a number of hon. Members have noted already. According to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 45 per cent. of cod caught in the North sea last year were discarded. Much higher levels of discards are reported in more inshore waters. The reality of discards can be seen on the north-east coast, where fishermen operating in a mixed fishery are being forced to discard the whiting that is being caught in abundance due to a reduction in TAC.
	The overall TAC is not being caught but the UK quota means that vessels have had to discard whiting from March onwards this year. If the proposed reductions go ahead next year, they claim that they will be discarding from January, and that is a prime example of the current inflexibility of the EU's TAC and quota system.

Alistair Carmichael: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Richard Benyon: I am conscious of the time and hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little more progress, as I might be coming to the point that I think he may be about to raise.
	However, I was pleased by the Minister's confirmation that the Government are backing the Aalborg declaration of earlier this year. That has shown a commitment at last to tackling discards, as it allows fishermen to land all of their catch. The Minister will be aware that that reflects a policy discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster over the past year. The commitment is welcome, but it would have been better if the UK had been able to take the lead and put its own policy on discards in place. We need to go further than these headline announcements. We need to be firm in calling on the EU to take a more flexible approach and give the UK the opportunity to pilot schemes for local management in our fisheries to reduce discards.
	We should not be making disjointed and largely unsuccessful efforts to confront the issues facing our industry. The Minister touched on decommissioning, but I think he is on thin ice with that issue. If I had been in his position, with the millions of pounds that have been spent on decommissioning, I think I could have made a better job of rebalancing the industry. I would have held the quota that he allowed to remain with individuals as a national asset and given it- [ Interruption. ] It was in the Minister's gift to give it to whatever groups of fishermen he felt had been unfairly treated.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am sorry for wasting other hon. Members' time by intervening on this point, but it is important that we hear the hon. Gentleman's view. Is he suggesting that we give it to the under-10s? Because that was what we did.

Richard Benyon: The Minister gave a small amount to the under-10s, but if that quota had been held, millions of pounds of decommissioning money could have been spent much more effectively on rebalancing the industry. I will be happy to discuss this with him at any time, but I think he got that one badly wrong.
	Of course, the EU and member states have an oversight role, but day-to-day management must be devolved to a local level. Irresponsible fishermen must be taken to task, but they are the minority. The majority of fishermen are responsible stewards of our seas, and they are keen to be trusted and given the responsibility to make a difference to the fisheries on which they rely.
	I draw hon. Members' attention to the common fisheries policy Green Paper, because it gives the industry an opportunity to become less decentralised. I commend the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations for producing a very good paper, in which it talks about an approach of sustainable fishing plans, which is similar to a policy that I have discussed as I have gone around the country. The proposal is for three to five-year plans in which technical measures and accreditation schemes could be assessed, and the burden of proof could be reversed. The approach would not only have additional benefit for fishermen, because how much more fun would it be for someone to work for the MFA or the marine maritime organisation if they could say not, "You can't do this, and if you try that, we'll criminalise you," but, "We'll educate you, provide you with the means by which you can change the way you fish, and support you in trying to fish more sustainably"? That would be a much better way to proceed, so I pay tribute to the NFFO for bringing its proposal forward as part of the debate on CFP reform.
	The top-down, centralised approach that has been followed thus far cannot continue if we are to achieve sustainable fisheries. With CFP reforms on the horizon, we must seize the opportunity for wholesale reform that decentralises day-to-day management of fisheries to a local level. We must trust fishermen's knowledge of their fisheries and allow them to lead the way on fisheries management. Regional advisory councils already provide an effective model for that, and if the new inshore fisheries and conservation authorities created by the 2009 Act are implemented effectively, they will offer real potential for devolving responsibility to where the knowledge really lies.
	Getting the reform right is of utmost importance to thousands of British fishermen. The current version of the CFP has been almost universally acknowledged as a disaster for both the fishing industry and the health of the marine environment. It has failed to provide a sustainable future for our fishermen and failed to protect our fish stocks. There is no room for back-seat politics when it comes to CFP reform. If I am lucky enough to find myself in the Minister's position, my party and I will engage at every level in the EU to ensure that we get the best possible deal for the future of fishermen. The European Commission has opened a window of opportunity for the radical reform of the common fisheries policy and it is imperative that the Minister and anyone who follows him exercise as much influence as possible over the reforms.
	As I have said, the issues affecting fisheries do not begin and end with the industry. If our fisheries are to have a sustainable future, we must take steps to conserve fish stocks and rebalance the industry so that effort does not outstrip supply. The 2009 Act has provided a once-in-a-generation opportunity to carry out meaningful and effective conservation measures for our seas. The creation of marine conservation zones, IFCAs and the Marine Management Organisation is a positive step in the right direction. It was a pleasure to work on the Act as it proceeded through Parliament, and the cross-party consensus that operated in a bid to put the legislation on the statute book was a model of how to take such a measure through the House.
	We have, however, done the easy bit. I remember seeing a look of satisfaction on the faces of many hon. Members as we passed the Act, but MCZs must be thoughtfully implemented and properly managed. Enacting a Bill is, in a sense, just a process-it is the outcomes that really matter. It is imperative that the designation of MCZs is an ongoing, flexible process that addresses the wide range of environmental challenges facing the marine environment. We also need a buy-in from fishermen, but that will be achieved only if we work with them, rather than impose measures on them. The Minister commented in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on conservation areas and special protected areas. If Natural England is true to its word, MCZs will be implemented in a balanced process that will involve fishermen at an early stage.
	The implementation of European special protected areas is causing concern. The other day I was in Weymouth, where fishermen had been shown lines on maps of fishing areas in which they have had crab pots for many years. However, such plans should be explained to them at an early stage. There may be a thoroughly justified reason why those areas have been protected, but the fact that fishermen have not been consulted is a problem.
	A further challenge arising from the 2009 Act is the transition of the Marine and Fisheries Agency to the new Marine Management Organisation. I hope that the Minister's optimism is justified. I welcome the creation of this important new Government agency, which I hope will breathe new life into the approach to fisheries management, but I am concerned lest the transition from the MFA should result in the loss of specialist expertise. I learned from the written answer to a recent parliamentary question that some 67 MFA staff have refused to relocate to the new MMO in Tyneside. For many months, inside the organisation, reference was made to the Tyneside 10.

Andrew Pelling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you provide guidance as to whether there will be time for any Back-Bench contributions to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, indeed there will be, and points of order like that one just take up even more time.

Richard Benyon: I am bringing my remarks to a conclusion, but it is important that the Minister understands the concern within the organisation about the MMO. The Government are not good at machinery of government changes or at managing people and organisations. There may be very good reasons why Tyneside was chosen for the relocation, and I have nothing against the area, but the Minister should have consulted the MFA employees much earlier to encourage more of them to go to the new MMO, because it is important that it works. We will all support it when it comes into operation in April, but it has not had a good start.
	I approach my role with no sense of a one-size-fits-all solution, and I intend to work with anyone who wants a meaningful discussion about how to approach the future of our seas. However, if my party comes to power, the health of our seas, the viability of fishing as a business and the plight of our coastal communities will be real challenges for a new Government, and they will be a priority for my party in the months and years ahead.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will apply from now on.

Austin Mitchell: May I express my resentment that this major fishing debate, which is important to all of us and brings together the best and the brightest Members of Parliament-that is to say, the fishermen of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, plus a line fisherman from Reading-super-Mare-to discuss the issues of fishing has been allowed only two and a quarter hours, of which the first hour has been taken up by the Front-Bench speakers? It is appalling that we are forced to cram our remarks on the forthcoming talks into that time, particularly as these talks will be some of the most difficult that we have had to face.
	Today's Norway talks will be complicated by the unilateral mackerel quotas grabbed by Iceland, the Faroes and Norway. We face a difficult settlement in the December Council meeting because of the problem of cod in the Irish sea. We face a situation in which co-decision is to be extended to the European Parliament, which will bring many more political considerations into a common fisheries policy that should not be dominated by politics, and will increase the leverage of the conservation and environmental fanatics, who regard commercial fishing as the enemy rather than the agent of conservation and sustainable fishing, which is how I see it. They will pay more attention to the cuddly seals than to the fish that the seals eat.
	The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), said that the reform of the common fisheries policy for which he so much hoped was pushing at an open door. I have to say that some horrible things have emerged behind that door so far, with the first grab of power by the European Commission when it introduced the technical rules, which have been abominated by fishermen and the fishing organisations. The rules were rushed in with no consultation and were top-down measures of the type that we do not want. Fortunately they were postponed, but the Commission has now insisted on an EU control regulation which will provide for only a 10 per cent. margin of tolerance between the logbook estimates and the landing declarations.
	That will lead to prosecutions all over Europe, particularly in this country, where our authorities are more assiduous than most, as soon as we get electronic logbooks. It is very difficult to estimate the size of the small amounts of by-catch, and any error of more than 10 per cent. will lead to prosecution. That will lead to an insane situation, with prosecutions all over Europe and all over England. In Grimsby recently a skipper was found to have a discrepancy of only 8 per cent. between his logbook estimate and his landing declaration on plaice, for which he was prosecuted, although there were no quota restrictions on his producer organisation for that species.
	If that is an augury of things to come, it is an augury of disaster. If it is an augury of the kind of thing that the reform of the common fisheries policy will throw up, then that is even worse. We should oppose such reforms. Reform should pass power down from the centre-the point made by hon. Gentleman-from the command and control economy and management system operated by the Commission to the regional advisory councils and to a self-regulating industry. "Trust the fishermen" should be the slogan. The de facto decision making should be devolved and responsibility should be delegated.
	We need sustainable fishing plans managed by producer organisations that will document the vessels' activities and performance and will audit the situation-a bottom-up rather than a top-down system, such as the one that operates in Australia. We need to combine that with long-term management plans, and I hope the Government will support that.
	In the December Council, the probable 25 per cent. reduction in fishing mortality under the cod recovery plan in the Irish sea and Scottish westerly waters will divert effort from those waters into the North sea and damage the industry there. The cod recovery plan is not working effectively in the North sea, either, so the time has come to review the plan and ask whether we cannot sustain and rebuild the stocks by other means. Something has to be done about a plan that is manifestly not working. We must note that any reduction in the days-at-sea allowances will lead to "Olympic" fishing, whereby people go out and catch all that they can. They will catch more cod as by-catch, and that will encourage more discards. The same situation will apply to nephrops, because of the failure of the catches on the Porcupine bank off Ireland, which will have a knock-on effect on the whole area. Why can we not combine haddock and whiting quotas to reduce whiting discards? Fishermen could make a return and land their stock, and we could avoid the problem of such large discards.
	It is appropriate that I give only a short speech, but I want the Minister to make such proposals at the December Council. The industry will support them. He has done a very good and helpful job so far, but the crunch time is now, and it is important to resist the Commission's proposals.

Andrew George: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell): we need protected time in which to undertake this debate in future, so that we do not lose time because of other business. Many hon. Members wish to take part, and I shall do my utmost to make my remarks as quickly as possible so that we allow as many hon. Members to speak as we can.
	We use this debate as an opportunity both to demonstrate our appreciation of those in the industry, especially the catching sector, who are engaged in the most hazardous profession, and to convey our sympathies to the families and colleagues of those men who engage in this important industry to put fish on our tables and who are lost at sea.
	I pay tribute to the Minister and agree with about 90 per cent. of what he said. I shall try to concentrate on the areas where we disagree, rather than on those where we agree. In that respect, I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), because, having heard a decade of fantasy from the Conservatives, I think it useful and helpful to hear that the party has turned around and is now engaged in constructive dialogue about the future of the fishing industry in relation to its international objectives with the rest of Europe.
	The negotiations are very difficult. The Minister will be aware that the main, very important fishing port of Newlyn in my constituency, which I hope he will visit soon, had a troubled year. It is now, however, looking positively to the future. However, many challenges affect my constituency and others. They include the challenges from the change to the regulation on under-10 metre vessels. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) will mention recreational sea anglers and the regulations affecting them. In an intervention on the Minister, I also mentioned that two of the five special areas of conservation-the special protection areas-are within my constituency. Their likely impact should be a good opportunity for the Government and Natural England to show that, in fact, conservation and a sustainable fishing industry can work together. We will watch that one closely. Further challenges include the roll-out of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the implementation of the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities, and I congratulate the Minister on his decision to retain the integrity of the current boundaries of the sea fisheries committees.
	I shall emphasise a theme in my contribution. On the future of this industry, we do not envisage the "them and us" culture of the past, with the fishing industry working against those enforcing the regulations and the scientists, or vice versa. Instead, we envisage everyone working together, with the shared objectives of a sustainable industry-scientists and regulators working with the industry, and the industry often leading the debate on constructive proposals for its future.
	I want to deal with the annual Fisheries Council, common fisheries policy reform, and the Green Paper, and to look at constructive ways forward. The Minister will be aware, as he has been through this already, that we will no doubt again have the absurdity of the 11th-hour brinkmanship of overnight negotiations as the fishing nations come together to resolve the remaining issues of debate and disagreement. I wish him well in those discussions. Of course, we agree that decisions should be based on sound science, but what do we do if the science is not there or if there has been insufficient recent scientific assessment? That has bedevilled much of our debate in years gone by. Throughout area 7, many of the scientific assessments are based on last year's, not this year's, assessments. What are we to do in those circumstances? I hope that the Minister will say that he is working towards remedying that situation early in 2010. Scientists, the industry, DEFRA, the regional advisory councils and the European Commission need to work together to address it.
	Another theme that runs through those negotiations, which possibly affects areas 6 and 7 more than others, is the "use or lose it" method, which results in perverse outcomes-for example, the Cornish fishermen lose out if the French do not catch their quota. If quotas are not rolled over, there is also the perverse incentive whereby fishermen are encouraged to catch rather than to preserve their stock. I hope that the Minister will take that into account in his negotiations in the Fisheries Council.
	The practice of quota swapping increasingly happens between nations. As a result of the establishment of the RACs, Cornish fishermen are working well with French fishermen, and that is happening elsewhere, too. Surely that is a beneficial outcome. It is better to develop international relations by joint working within the RACs. I understand that that is not yet sanctioned or supported by the Minister and his Department, so I hope that he will take that point on board.
	The Minister mentioned the need to preserve spurdogs, porbeagle sharks, skates and rays. Those are non-target species, and rightly so, but they are an unavoidable by-catch in many of the sectors that we are talking about. I hope that he will work with the industry to try to ensure that we reduce that by-catch, as the measures proposed in the settlement for the Fisheries Council will not save a single spurdog, porbeagle shark, skate or ray. He has received a letter from the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, dated 27 November, which contains some significant proposals that I hope he will take into account.
	I think that we are all reading from the same page in the debate on common fisheries policy reform. We want it to be more devolved on the basis of better science, better monitoring and better, more even enforcement across Europe, with more buy-in, based on a constructive dialogue, from an industry incentivised to promote long-term objectives and sustainability. However, the remaining issue, which we often come back to, is the role of total allowable catches and quotas in the future of the CFP. I think we can also all agree, as we have tended to do so in all the debates that I have engaged in, that quotas are a blunt instrument. They create the obscenity of discarding fish, they create a barrier to new entrants, they are almost useless in protecting stock in mixed fisheries, particularly ultra-mixed fisheries such as those in my area, and they are perceived as often being based on arbitrary assessments and threadbare evidence.
	There are many other criticisms of TACs and quotas. However, the problem is that as soon as one starts to think of getting rid of them, the industry says that the problem is that the most highly valued stock-in my area, Dover sole and turbot, for example-would be the first to be plundered and would therefore slip down the value chain. Moreover, that approach would hit the areas that are as close as possible to port, particularly when fuel prices are high. It would not work. I have noticed that the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations is very clear about wanting a system strongly based on quotas.
	The problem with discards is how to distinguish intended and unintended over-quota by-catches. That has been a conundrum for the regulators and will continue to be. If we got rid of quotas altogether, those who had invested properly would not be properly rewarded for it in future quotas and licences.
	The hon. Member for Newbury referred to the NFFO's proposed sustainable fishing plans, which are clearly the way forward. It has stated that a future CFP should be:
	"The catching and gathering of marine resources for the benefit of humankind in ways that do not prejudice future generations".
	I would add that that should probably include their appreciation of a healthy and diverse marine environment. The culture has changed for the better over the past decade, and there is a strong and constructive dialogue. The industry is working constructively with marine scientists, and there are two good examples of that. The first is the Cornish Trevose ground closure, which has now been in operation for four years. It was designed for cod recovery, and anecdotally it is working. We have not yet had a review of the impact that it is having, and I hope that the Minister will ensure that there is one. Has it displaced effort elsewhere, and what contribution has it made to the spawning stock biomass, sustainable yields and the recovery of cod and other species? Knowing that would be particularly helpful.
	The second example, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is an excellent initiative largely driven by the industry in Scotland-the Scottish conservation credits scheme, which was introduced last February. They are Celts, but they are rather laggardly Celts, because they are slightly behind the Cornish, but never mind. We will forgive them for that-at least they are ahead of the Anglo-Saxons. The scheme is based on voluntarily closed areas, changes in gear, the management of effort and the maintenance of days at sea.
	The industry has come up not only with those two excellent initiatives, which are already working, but with something of which I hope the Minister will take account-the sustainable fishing plans. The hon. Member for Newbury has already described them, so I do not need to. I hope that the Minister will take into account what hon. Members have said and ensure that the plans become the basis on which we can build an agenda for the future in which the industry is keyed in and working constructively with scientists, marine conservationists and law enforcers. There must be greater teamwork, with all of us working together, rather than the "them and us" culture of the past.

Frank Doran: I welcome the approach that the Minister has taken and the opportunity once again to discuss the fishing industry. Not a lot changes-in the 20 years or so that I have been attending these debates, Front-Bench speeches have always been too long and the debate has always been too short, and we are always compressed like this.
	The Minister opened the debate by referring to the huge changes that we are seeing in the industry, a number of which have been mentioned by all three Front Benchers, but nothing much has changed for the industry, because this year it is once again facing a lot of uncertainty. That is partly about the Norway and EU discussions that are taking place today, and the level of uncertainty is much greater this year because of the mackerel stocks, which have been mentioned a number of times. It is clear that the industry faces a number of serious problems, and it will need to adjust to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Probably most important are the changes in the CFP. There is a lot of optimism, and it is important that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet on such a fundamental issue.
	The all-party fisheries group recently met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. I have to say that I did not detect a huge amount of optimism from them about where they saw the EU going, despite the NFFO's very good report on the Commission's green paper. There is still a lot of uncertainty about whether the Fisheries Council or the European Commission would want to give up their power.
	That situation has been made slightly worse because the industry is smarting from the decision that the Fisheries Council took last week on the west coast white fish sector. That is likely to have an impact, not just on the Scottish industry but around the country, because of the displacement that may be caused, because of other factors and, more importantly, because of the attitude taken by the Commission. There is deep concern, certainly about the attitude of the Fisheries Council, because the decision seemed to show that it is still in the driving seat, and that there is still centralised control. The industry saw the emergency regulations introduced earlier in the year as temporary, and there was real concern and surprise when the Council extended them. That is a serious matter for concern.
	It is quite clear from the UK industry-this comes through in the NFFO publication mentioned earlier, and in publications from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation-that it strongly wishes to move away from the current centralised approach, and towards a regional management system, whereby local decisions can be taken by stakeholders under a process of rigorously applied and regulated criteria. That is certainly set out in the Commission's green paper, but the question is whether the attitude recently shown by the Commission suggests that it is seriously likely to consider that route. That is something that we need to consider carefully.
	The Minister mentioned the number of jobs in the industry, but he did not mention the onshore side of the industry-the fish processing side. It is going through difficulties of its own. It suffers the same uncertainty about supplies, but of course it can, and does, import from ports around the world. Like every other business, fish processing businesses are under pressure, particularly because of the lending position taken by many banks. Those businesses face the same difficulties as the rest of British industry, and we should recognise the importance of fish processors to the fishing industry.
	The Minister rightly paid tribute to those fishermen- 12 this year-who have lost their lives in the UK fishing industry. We all know that the fishing industry is the most dangerous industry in this country. A research project carried out by two academics at Swansea university and published in 2007 set out the shocking figures. The fatal accident rate for UK fishermen between 1996 and 2005 was 115 times higher than that of the general UK work force. By comparison with other specific areas of work, that rate was 81 time higher than that in manufacturing, and 24 times higher than in the most dangerous onshore industry, construction.
	That research was followed by a report by the marine accident investigation branch, which was published last year. I know that the MAIB is not part of the Minister's Department, but it investigated the causes of death of the 256 commercial fishermen who died in 180 separate marine accidents between 1992 and 2006. Those statistics were added to and highlighted when Seafish published its report "The Price of Fish?" earlier this year. Seafish is to be congratulated on the report and on the work that it is doing on the subject.
	The title of the report is apposite, because we know that as the economics get tougher in any industry, particularly the fishing industry, more and more risks are taken; that is a sign of the times. That is a matter that we need to be cautious and careful about, and we need to invest much more to tackle the problem. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) talked about the culture of the industry. One anecdote that has stayed with me throughout the time that I have represented a fishing community is that of the old fisherman who was shown a new type of lifejacket. His first response to it was, "Aye, son, but does it catch fish?" That is the culture of the industry. It is a dangerous culture, and we need to work to change that. I make a simple plea to the Minister: in all the hectic rounds of talks and negotiations over quotas, which do not happen just at this time of year but throughout the year, will he and the Government as a whole not lose sight of the importance of the safety of our fishermen?

Bill Wiggin: I begin by praising the work of the Angling Trust, whose headquarters are in Leominster, in my constituency. I am very proud that it has chosen to base itself there. Herefordshire has the famous River Wye, the finest salmon river in England. The Angling Trust came into effect in January 2009-the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) and I were there-and it has provided a unified voice for angling needs, which is a tremendous asset. Some 4 million anglers contribute £1 billion to the economy and support more than 20,000 jobs. The trust has done a good job of keeping the interests of angling to the fore in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that it is essential that angling interests are properly represented on inshore fisheries and conservation authorities and are not just lumped in with other interests. They need a proper voice.
	Angling is a great inclusive sport. I would also like to pay tribute to the organisations that support disabled angling, particularly the British Disabled Angling Association. Unfortunately, last year the Government hit disabled anglers with a one-third increase in their fishing licence fees, and 140,000 senior and disabled anglers are now paying more for their concessionary rates.
	In a written answer to me, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), then a DEFRA Minister, confirmed in April 2008 that there would be another review of the concessionary rates for the licence fee in 2010. I hope that this Minister will ensure that that review takes place and that angling groups and disabled anglers, in particular, are fully included in that review and that the concessionary rates do not remain as they are but go down so that more disabled anglers find it easier to go fishing.
	Article 47 of the related EU Commission regulation is the other serious concern against which anglers have been battling. It would take the amount of fish caught by anglers and put it in with national quotas. As for the progress that has been made, it is a case of so far, so good. I tabled early-day motion 528 on this matter last year and I think that the European Economic and Social Committee has highlighted the impact on the commercial sector and amended the wording. However, although I welcome the progress, we have to be careful. Some of the terms in the existing wording allow the Council to introduce "specific management measures", including catching declarations and fishing authorisations, where it is thought that a recreational fishery is having a "significant impact." The danger may have abated, but it has not gone away. I hope that the Minister will keep the House updated on such proposals and ensure that we veto them if the opportunity arises in Council.
	The Minister mentioned the bluefin tuna. It is a tragedy that, even though that species is one of the most endangered in the world, members of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas-ICCAT-voted in November to allow 13,500 tonnes of bluefin tuna to be caught next year. That fish will be extinct in two years' time; it cannot be fished at that level, and it is a real mistake to allow it. More needs to be done to prevent illegal tuna fishing and we certainly should not be considering having such big quotas.
	On whaling, I must encourage the Government to take a very robust approach. Just recently, we saw the Japanese make significant progress: they actually managed to win a vote. When that happened, I checked to see what the Government had done to encourage other countries to join the moratorium on whaling. Very little had been done and so I take this opportunity to say to the Minister that he must not take his eye off the ball-we are all agreed that whaling cannot be allowed to be brought back.
	We must ensure that effort goes into bringing on board countries that are not members of the International Whaling Commission. When the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) was the relevant Minister, he gave me a written answer that said that, of the 57 countries to which the Government sent their documents, only 15 were non-IWC members. Seven of those have still not joined: Bosnia, Latvia, Malta, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Turkey. I hope that the Minister will ensure that pressure is put on those countries to join the IWC and to ensure that whaling is not brought back.
	On the Marine and Coastal Access Act, I think we all welcome the progress that has been made. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) on the excellent job that he did in a very consensual and positive way. He made sure that the Bill was as good as it could possibly be, and I congratulate him on that. One thing is still of critical importance-that other countries respect our efforts to preserve the marine environment. At the moment, they do not have to do so, which is why within six miles of our shore foreign fishermen can be obeying a completely different set of rules from those observed by British fishermen. We saw that with bass pair trawling-a way of fishing that is especially damaging to dolphins and that goes on just out of range. I urge the Government to do everything they can to ensure that the six and 12-mile limits are respected and that other European countries obey the same rules as British fishermen.
	I know that the Minister will be discussing fish stocks in December, and he will know that 88 per cent. of fish stocks in Europe are over-fished, compared to a global average of 25 per cent. Some 30 per cent. of stocks are outside safe biological limits and 14 of the 47 fin fish stocks of importance to UK fishermen are now fished outside those limits. Only eight fin fish stocks are within those limits. If the Minister can do just one thing in his term of office it should be to ensure that those fish stocks are preserved. Everyone agrees that discards are wrong, but until we start to measure what is caught, we will not have the scientific evidence that we need to enforce proper discard bans. The hon. Member who mentioned what his fishermen were doing with larger mesh sizes was right, but at the moment there is no incentive for fishermen to be more selective in their gear-they do it out of the goodness of their hearts-and we need to ensure that, if at all possible, we reward best behaviour. At the moment, that is not happening and we need to do far more.
	Equally, we need to look at how the Government are allocating quota to the under-10-metre fleet. I understand that The Hague convention allocation went to the over-10-metre fleet-

Huw Irranca-Davies: Not this year.

Bill Wiggin: That is the first time that the Government have done what I asked last year and I am delighted to hear it. That is fantastic. At last, we are being listened to.
	Under the sustainable access to inshore fisheries project, the Minister introduced the environmentally responsible fishing pilot scheme for 31 vessels in the under-10-metre fleet in three areas. Those vessels can fish without restriction and land their catches instead of discarding them. That is tremendous, but what I want to ensure is that the fish that are caught are recorded, so that we have proper scientific evidence and know what other people are doing. If that happens, there is hope for our industry. We have heard how dangerous it is, and we should remember those fishermen who have lost their lives at sea. This is an important issue and I wish the Minister well in the debate in Europe.

Eddie McGrady: At this time of year, the Northern Ireland fishing industry faces the Christmas season with dread and almost despair because of the growing inability to earn a living at sea. I do not intend to address the broader issues, because they have been, and will be, so eloquently addressed by other hon. Members. I will discuss the more parochial aspects of the issue that I would like the Minister to consider.
	I endorse the praise for the Minister that has come from both sides of the House tonight for his administration of this difficult industry. However, I shall unfortunately strike a discordant note. The House may be aware that the operation of the Hague preferences is particularly important to the island of Ireland, both north and south, but there is a feeling among the fishermen of Northern Ireland that they are now making an undue proportion of the contribution under the Hague preferences. Until last year, the buy-back or swap of the losses was compensated for by the UK as a whole, but it appears to Northern Ireland fishermen that this year they were the primary contributor to the swapping process.
	In an effort to gauge accurately the scale of the swaps, fishermen asked DEFRA to give a summary of the Hague preference losses for the Irish sea since 2000. They were advised that the information could not be released because although the December negotiation teams had the information, they could not divert resources to release it. I find that a rather weak reason these days, when we have the technical ability to transfer data almost immediately. I must say, however, that I am disappointed because, in preparing for that point, I wrote to the Minister on 6 November, but as yet I have not even received an acknowledgement.
	I shall move on, however, to the more important issue of the yearly quota cuts, including the one that will no doubt come from Brussels this month. The Minister referred to the importance in certain fishing communities of this vital industry-on both sea and land-to their economic welfare. That could not be better exemplified or illustrated than in my constituency of South Down, where two thirds of the fishing effort is concentrated; the remaining third is in the neighbouring Antrim constituency. In my constituency, and in one port in the Strangford constituency, the industry employs 1,200 people, contributing nearly £100 million to the economy. That would be severely affected by a further decline owing to the small-industry wipe-out that has taken place in constituencies such as mine and the complete collapse of the construction industry.
	The largest sector in the Northern Ireland fishing industry is the prawn and nephrop sector-some 90 per cent. of the fishing fleet fishes for nephrops. That is the direct result of the yearly purges of the cod quota, resulting in an overall cut in the quota to date of 84 per cent. Only six boats in Northern Ireland still fish for cod.
	That dynamic change, however, has not been particularly recognised by Europe, whose main proposal this year is to cut the nephrop and prawn sector by a further 30 per cent. If I remember rightly, last year, a more modest proposal for a 2 per cent. cut came out of the negotiations, but even that cost the economy in small communities in Northern Ireland £2 million. We could extrapolate a 2 per cent. cut from a 30 per cent. cut, but we still do not know what might happen. If the proposal is taken forward, at that rate of cut, several fish processing factories and more than 200 jobs will be lost immediately.
	On the prawn quota, the scientific evidence gathered by the Agri-Food and Bio Sciences Institute is positive, and shows that prawns in the Irish sea are fished sustainably and that stocks are on an upward trend. Yet we have this proposal from Brussels for yet another massive cut. Like the Northern Ireland regional agriculture and fisheries Minister, I would like the Minister to confirm whether the area 7 prawn quota will be the No. 1 priority in the negotiations.

Huw Irranca-Davies: indicated assent.

Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister for that confirmation.
	Since 1999, the European Commission has cut the cod quota by 84 per cent., the whiting quota by 95 per cent. and the plaice quota by 96 per cent., with further reductions proposed of 25 per cent. for cod and plaice and 30 per cent. for prawns. We must ask ourselves, "How can we protect our fishing industry?" It is not just a question of the income, but of the tradition, know-how and intimate knowledge gained over generations of fishing in particular places.
	One of the problems of Northern Ireland's fishing industry is that it always feels one step away from the negotiating table. I welcomed the Minister's saying earlier that regional devolution to some extent, under broad guidelines, can take place. That would be very much welcomed by the fishing industry in Northern Ireland, which co-operates fully with the scientific regime that is measuring and advising on these matters.
	I hope the Minister will take on board the fact that the industry in Northern Ireland is on a delicate knife edge between reaching critical mass and suffering total annihilation, and sustaining the livelihood of those communities in the years to come.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The next speaker may take the eight minutes that is allowed, but after that I propose to reduce the time to five minutes, to try to get as many people as possible at least to make some contribution.

Angus MacNeil: It is that time of year again when the CFP gets its usual bad name. No one in Westminster seems to have a good word for it, but because of the great deities hanging around our necks, it is not, unfortunately, challenged seriously by any of the current big parties in the House, so fishing priorities are diluted. From the perspective of Scottish desires, the priorities are diluted in the British Union. The UK's desires are further diluted in the European Union, but that is the CFP for us. I could go on for far longer, but I notice that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), my ally on this issue, is not in his place, so perhaps I will spare the House, as hon. Members might not have the stomach for it.
	We are where we are. What message do I want to leave ringing in the Minister's ears before he goes to Europe? I have a shopping list of things, and I am sure he will be taking notes on them or reading about them tomorrow. First, as has been mentioned, he should protect the mackerel, Scotland's second most important quota after langoustines or nephrops-call them what we will. I hope that the Government at Westminster will not blink on the issue. We hold the cards on mackerel. We should keep those cards and not trade mackerel away for any other species.
	In the wider fishery, Scots fishermen in particular have led the way on conservation issues, as has been mentioned. That should be recognised and rewarded, not subject to the penalisation that so often characterises the common fisheries policy. On the wider philosophy of fishing, a mixed fishery with quotas is just not working. For instance, the Faroese are using an effort-based approach. They seem to be far more successful and are much happier with what is happening with their fishery-they are also outside the common fisheries policy, of course. One of the issues with quotas is that scientists emphasise the lowest stock in a mixed fishery, which leads to a perverse approach to the management of that fishery.

Huw Irranca-Davies: indicated assent.

Angus MacNeil: The Minister knows the difficulty with that issue; I can see him nodding.
	Given the time available, I will now raise the issues that are pressing in my area of Na h-Eileanan an Iar-a constituency that I am sure the Minister looks forward to pronouncing at the end of the debate-on the west coast of Scotland. If I can translate from Gaelic, the main point made earlier today by Duncan McInnes of the Western Isles Fishermen's Association is that the squid and crayfish that are currently caught as part of cod recovery should be excluded, as the cod by-catch in the fishery is effectively zero. I hope the Minister will look at that issue. Prawn fisheries in which the cod caught accounts for less than 1.5 per cent. should also be excluded, and those concerned should be given 200 days at sea and the ability to land the by-catch.
	The Minister may need to know that although west coast prawn numbers are currently low, they were also low in 1981, yet 1982 and 1983 were almost record years. Prawn numbers are cyclical. The difficulty with the science is that it often takes snapshots, reporting things as they are and attributing them to whatever reasons or causes come to mind. We really do not know the reasons and causes, but we can learn from history about what happened in the prawn fishery before and see that the years after were successful years.
	With a 30 per cent. by-catch of cod, haddock and whiting in some prawn fisheries, fishermen's leaders feel that the haddock should be removed from that category, because stocks of haddock are so good. The haddock fishery is in a very healthy position. John Hermse of Mallaig and North-West Fishermen's Association echoed that point. He would like some help to be given to the prawn fishery, which is experiencing some difficulty, with a 15 per cent. increase in megrim and a 30 per cent. increase in monkfish, to help make the fishery pay for those fishermen. This issue is highlighted in an e-mail I was sent earlier today from the fishing vessel Astra in Stornoway. Given the limited time available, I will spare the House from having the e-mail read out, but it underlines the points made by Mallaig and North-West. I will of course make the contents of the e-mail available to the Minister if he would like to read it.
	Mallaig and North-West also made an important point about the continuing catch of dogfish. At one time, these fish were caught and landed, but because of the bureaucratic drop in quota they are now caught and discarded. If that issue could be looked at, it would avoid the wastage of good food being thrown over the side.
	Will the Minister also look at the tagging of nets? It is very annoying to fishermen when their boats are boarded and time is wasted while the inspectors check their nets; they might already have been checked in the very recent past. They could be easily be tagged to indicate that they had been looked at recently, so the lads can get back to their fishing.
	On a lateral issue, I would like the Minister to consider Filipino fishermen, who are a welcome addition on the west coast. They are liked, wanted and needed there. I have been in talks with the Filipino ambassador about this. I hope that the Minister can use his position in Government to impress on the UK Border Agency just how important these fishermen are. The immigration Minister was helpful earlier in the year in ensuring an extension when there was a threat of having some of these fishermen removed from the country, but the immigration advisory council has delayed re-categorisation, so we still need a bridging period until this matter can be sorted out. I hope the Minister will ensure that if any fishermen return to the Faroes for the Christmas period, they will be allowed to come back. This issue also affects the processing sector; if these fishermen are not there to catch the fish, there will be no jobs in the processing sector, because the boats will tie up without them.
	I wish the Minister well at the talks-the annual horse-trading, as it is dubbed. Let me say that it might be easier for him if he had alongside him the ally of an independent Scotland, which might happen in the not- too-distant future. Finally, I would welcome the Minister to Stornoway at any time in the near future.

Martin Salter: I should like to thank our two Front-Bench spokesmen with all the venom and sarcasm I can muster for limiting Back-Bench contributions down to what is now more likely to be a shopping list than a speech; so I had better get on with it.
	I praise the Minister and all concerned for the passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009-an excellent example of how well we can legislate.
	I urge the recreational angling sector to participate in the excellent "Your Seas, Your Voice" campaign, which it was my privilege to launch the other week in Westminster. It seeks public and stakeholder involvement in the identification of these important marine conservation zones. It is important that all stakeholders contribute to ensuring that we have conservation zones in the right places for the right objectives.
	The Minister will have heard me say this before, but I would like to press him on the new IFCAs-inshore fisheries and conservation authorities-and ensure that sea angling is properly represented on them, as it was woefully under-represented on the old sea fisheries committees.
	I thank the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) for his support for the Angling Trust. It is true that I launched it in January and that he was in the audience. I was pleased to see him there. For the first time, the Angling Trust has got its act together for the world of recreational angling and has actually produced a briefing for Members of Parliament-100 years too late, but a new first. Many of us will be thankful for that.
	In exchanges on the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, the Minister gave a commitment to revisit the appalling decision of his predecessor on bass minimum landing sizes. I would like some timetable from him as to when that decision is to be reviewed. Alongside the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, we have finally seen the implementation of the salmon and freshwater fisheries review. New fish removal byelaws are being put in place and special measures are being taken to protect freshwater eels, which are fast becoming an endangered species. Separately, we have seen fish passage regulations and regulations in respect of hydropower to ensure that migrating fish can make their passage up river to the spawning grounds-an issue to which I shall shortly return.
	Secondly, it was my privilege to participate in the launch of the Our Rivers campaign, with which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) was also involved. It was a joint initiative from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Angling Trust and the WWF. That campaign highlights the fact that we are likely to miss dramatically the target that we need to meet under the water framework directive, which is for the majority of our rivers to have a good ecological status. At present only 20 per cent. of them have that status. There has been severe criticism of the 11 regional management plans presented by the Environment Agency. There has been a lack of effective stakeholder engagement and a lack of ambition. Those points were teased out in an Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 13 May.
	I share part of the River Kennet with the hon. Member for Newbury. We have seen increased turbidity in the river as a result of the opening of the Kennet and Avon canal, increased abstraction as a result of increased demand, point source pollution, and a prevalence of invasive species such as signal crayfish, which are decimating fish stocks. Some crayfish will actually lie under the vent of a spawning fish, eating the eggs as they emerge and thus preventing all opportunities for the recruitment of new fish.
	I was disappointed by Ofwat's draft determination, and also by the marginally better final determination that was published last week. I made serious criticisms of Ofwat-particularly in respect of the Thames Water region-for failing to take account of the need for continuing increased investment in dealing with waste water and sewage and tackling leakage, and, incredibly, failing to address the necessity of examining the impacts of climate change. It is true that Ofwat has allowed some significant investment. The Thames Tideway tunnel will make a major contribution, and despite the half-witted opposition of people such as Shaun Bailey and the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham, Stephen Greenhalgh, I believe it will make a radical difference. However, I worry about whether there will be sufficient investment in the 300-odd smaller sewage works which have an impact on Thames tributaries, including the Kennet.
	The current situation is ludicrous. On the one hand, we are seeking to ensure that migratory fish can run the rivers and reach the spawning grounds. On the other, Natural England talks of reintroducing the beaver, the one creature which, by creating dams, will ensure that all our legislation on fish passes becomes absolutely worthless. If we really have to introduce endangered species, why do we not take the DNA of Tyrannosaurus Rex or the wolf and bring them back to Britain? There must come a point at which reality impinges on what Natural England-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There must come another point as well.

Alistair Carmichael: Like other Members, I am conscious of the time, so I shall restrict my remarks to a shopping list consisting of a few items. It is unfortunate that we have to do so, because there are bigger issues at stake which deserve the time of the House. It is nothing short of scandalous that we are not able to give them proper ventilation.
	As the Minister prepares for the European Union- Norway talks, and subsequently the December Council, let me impress on him again the importance of preserving the mackerel allocation that we currently enjoy. The pelagic fleet is of supreme importance to communities such as Shetland which are highly dependent on fishing. The mackerel is probably the single most important element of the species available to those fishermen, and it should not be used as a pawn in some wider game with Norway. I have observed with some frustration the breakdown in international co-operation in that regard, which has seemed simply to disappear.
	The Minister will recall discussions last year about haddock. That remains a problem for fishermen on the west coast of Scotland, particularly on Orkney, and it seems that we are still far from a solution. However, the situation relating to the west coast quota will be greatly ameliorated if the Minister is able to preserve for the EU the 65 per cent. allocation of the total allowable catch of haddock around Rockall that we currently enjoy. Of course, that should never have been put beyond EU waters. It is nonsensical that haddock and other deep-water species are not party to EU waters, but that is an issue for another day.
	The fishermen whom I represent are particularly concerned about the effect of the 90 per cent. cod quota uptake. When fishermen hit the 90 per cent. allocation, they are required to start using separator gear. That means that they now cannot fish the last 10 per cent.-they are unable to fish up to the full quota. That may be a technical point, but I hope the Minister will accept that it is important and take it to the negotiating table.
	On the shopping list, may I draw to the attention of the House the importance of megrim? When I first started taking part in these debates some eight years ago, it was a species about which we hardly spoke at all, if at all. It is now one of the most important North sea species for the whitefish fleet. About 97 per cent. of the catch in the North sea comes to the United Kingdom, and about 80 per cent. of it comes to Scotland, and just about all of it is landed in Scotland. It has become enormously important, and it is deserving of a degree of attention this year-and, I am sure, in years to come-that it has not, perhaps, had in the past. May I also remind the Minister of the importance of monkfish? Brevitatis causa, I ask him to take on board my comments on that subject in previous fishing debates.
	We are now entering one of the most important phases of the coming years, as we look towards the reform of the common fisheries policy. As the Minister knows, I have a concern that while the Green Paper's analysis of the problem is welcome, it does not seem to accept the Commission's central role in creating that problem. In particular, I have a concern that the Commission seems to think that overcapacity is universal throughout the European Union, but it is not; the Scottish fleet, and in particular the Scottish whitefish fleet, have already experienced drastic decommissioning. We must be given the fullest possible credit for that as we go forward in the reform process.

Gary Streeter: I can also be mercifully brief. I simply want to make three representations on behalf of the fishermen of the far south-west, who see the reform of the common fisheries policy as an opportunity to put in place a far better system for preserving fish stocks and supporting our fishing industry.
	On discards, I have already mentioned the voluntary trial that is taking place among several trawlermen operating out of the west country. They are experimenting with mesh sizes and changing gear so that fish they are not seeking to catch have an opportunity to be released before the nets come to the surface. As I have mentioned, early results show a 60 per cent. reduction in discards. The fishermen are doing this voluntarily, and they say that they would like more such schemes to be developed in future. However, there needs to be an incentive in the form of some kind of enhanced quota when such cutting-edge measures are being introduced. I hope the Minister will take that on board in his negotiations with our European Union counterparts.
	My second point is about the quota system. It currently runs rigidly from 1 January to 31 December. My local fishermen tell me that far greater advantage could be won by having a more flexible system, such as the system for milk quotas, where both surpluses and amounts not yet used can be carried forward for at least one year over the 31 December deadline-the expression they have used is banking and borrowing. I hope the Minister will take that on board, because in future there must be a more flexible system than we have had in the past.
	Thirdly, as we have heard, good science makes for successful quotas. We need more scientists to go out on board the boats and more accurate surveying to be done, so the science and the fishermen interact more closely. I support the introduction of marine coastal zones; they are an excellent way forward. However, there needs to be full engagement and proper consultation with the fishing industry. I am sure the Minister intends that to take place.
	In the past, we have had a top-down, bureaucratic, heavy-handed EU system that, frankly, has delivered the worst of all worlds: the devastation of our fishing industry, while not really preserving our fish stocks. The future must be all about flexibility and devolved decision making, and it will certainly include technical means to reduce discards with a benefit to fishermen, banking and borrowing, and better science to get quotas right. In short, we need to trust the fishermen and build a partnership with them.

William McCrea: I was delighted to learn that on 12 August this Minister was the first UK Fisheries Minister to visit Northern Ireland in more than 10 years. I can assure him that he was very welcome. He heard for himself that the Irish sea fishermen consider themselves to be the poor relations of fishermen from other parts of the United Kingdom. I understand that he was told in no uncertain terms when he visited Portavogie that issues concerning the Irish sea should be at the top of the UK fisheries team's agenda for this autumn's negotiations. The increases in the cod quota in the North sea are good news for fishermen based in other parts of the UK, and are of course welcome, but what are the proposals for 2010 in respect of the Irish sea? I think that they are unjustified proposals made by Europe that will have an impact on Northern Ireland's fishermen.
	I wish to discuss the proposal for area 7 prawns. One matter that has frustrated me over the years has been the disagreement between fishermen and fisheries scientists about the state of fish stocks in the Irish sea. Yet I am delighted to learn that on prawns there is complete agreement between fishermen, fisheries scientists and officials; prawns are described as being fished "sustainably". Underwater camera surveys show a stable population-in fact, they have shown a significant increase in the Irish sea in 2009. This year's catches have broken all records, yet the Commission has proposed a 30 per cent. reduction in the quota, following a 17 per cent. increase three years ago. Of course the question we ask is, why?
	The Minister needs to be aware-he certainly has been made aware-of the social and economic consequences if any of those cuts are agreed. I agree with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on this. The County Down coast in Northern Ireland is home to the commercial industry, and Kilkeel is the largest of the fishing ports, being a town of about 6,500 people. Some 12 months ago it had three major employers, but unfortunately two of those have seen a dramatic collapse in their business because of the economic slowdown, resulting in hundreds of jobs being lost. The fishing industry is, thus, vital. Fishing is a traditional, locally owned industry and it is the last bastion of employment in Kilkeel and the other communities in the area, and if the December Fisheries Council agrees to any reduction in the prawn quota, that last bastion of employment will fall. That would be disastrous for the economic well-being of those communities, so I beg the Minister to ensure that that is not allowed to happen. He knows that he has the entire Northern Ireland team behind him: the Minister in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, her officials, the fisheries scientists, and the entire industry. Following a recent debate in the Assembly, everyone, including all those from Northern Ireland in this House, oppose any reduction in the prawn quota. As far as we are concerned, this is a red line issue for Northern Ireland.
	Let us consider other issues briefly. I know that the Minister has acknowledged to industry representatives that when he signed up to the long-term cod recovery plan on 19 November 2008 the plan was flawed, and in the intervening 12 months, even more flaws have been identified. That, unfortunately, is an expensive mistake, with which we are going to have to live for another two years. The proposed quota reductions in respect of whiting and sole are disappointing, and greater scientific emphasis needs to be put on the impact of other factors affecting fish population.
	In the midst of all this, it is good to have some positive news from the Irish sea. A roll-over of the haddock quota is good news, as is the proposed 15 per cent. increase in the plaice quota. The latest scientific report advocating a 15 per cent. increase in the Irish sea herring quota must be pursued with vigour and a quota increase must be ensured. We wish the Minister well in his deliberations and I can assure him that he has the support of Members from Northern Ireland. I trust that he will bat for our industry and its survival in Northern Ireland.

Alan Reid: We are almost at the last-chance saloon and we have to get common fisheries policy reform right this time-it is almost certainly the last chance for fish and for fishermen. I wish to echo the consensus across both sides of the House about the need to move away from the centralised system of decision making by the Commission in Brussels and towards a decentralised system based on regional management committees. Such committees would involve fishermen, scientists and fishery managers from the member states. Only by decentralising decisions down to the lower level will we ever get a system that sustains both fish and fishermen.
	In the short time available to me, I want to raise some of the issues that concern my constituents. In the waters off Argyll and Bute, nephrops are by far the main species that are caught. Of immediate concern to local fishermen are the Commission's proposals for year-on-year cuts in the days at sea of the nephrops fishery. If the restrictions come into effect, fishing will become unprofitable for many vessels.
	Nephrops stocks have been shown to be stable and healthy over a long period of time, but the Commission's cod recovery plan and its concerns about cod by-catch have serious implications for the nephrops fisheries. Those concerns are the reason why the Commission wants year-on-year cuts in the days at sea spent by the nephrops fleet.
	There is an exemption from the cuts in days at sea for vessels whose catch is made up of less than 1.5 per cent. cod, but in practice fishing vessels have encountered great difficulty in obtaining it. The Clyde Fishermen's Association has told me that many vessels have proven observed data that show that their catches are made up of less than 1.5 per cent. cod, yet the Commission will not accept that evidence and exempt the vessels from the days-at-sea restriction.
	The Commission is taking the approach that it will allow exemptions from effort restrictions only if a Swedish grid is fitted to the nephrops trawls. However, its insistence on the use of the Swedish grid does not take account of the measures already successfully employed to reduce the cod by-catch to less than 1.5 per cent. The grid has also been shown to be dangerous to handle, especially in bad weather, and trials have raised doubts about its effectiveness.
	Further reductions in days at sea would force many vessels out of business, so it is important that the Minister and his Scottish counterpart make sure at the coming negotiations that the Swedish grid is done away with and that agreement is reached with the Commission so that there is a sustainable and transparent method of measuring the 1.5 per cent. level. Unless exemptions are gained, many fishermen in my constituency will go out of business. That is just one example of how centralised control in Brussels simply does not work.
	I wish the Minister all the best at the Council, and hope that he will negotiate a sensible way to measure the 1.5 per cent. cod by-catch level.

Andrew Pelling: The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon) was right to emphasise the Commission's Green Paper which shows the disaster that the fishing industry has become, with 88 per cent. of European stocks being fished beyond their maximum sustainable yields. He was also right to say that it is important to look at these matters from the consumer's point of view and, given that I represent Croydon, Central, I guess that that is the role that I am playing.
	McDermotts restaurant in Croydon is one of the best fish restaurants in the south-east, and we also have the convenience of Top Fries. That may seem whimsical, but it is important to recognise that the fishing industry's impact goes all the way down to the high street, because it helps to keep the lights on in retail district centres.
	We need to adopt a more radical approach to fishing policy. As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) said, we need a system based on effort and not on the quotas that are so destructive. My suggestion is for a rather more dirigiste approach-a vessel monitoring system in which all vessels carry global positioning system technology so that the amount of time at sea can be restricted. Another possibility is the introduction of an electronic auction system, with operators buying the right to fish a given area for a set number of hours. That might be a more aggressive and determined approach, but I believe that Croydon residents who see the ecological disaster that is taking place think that such strong intervention is needed.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am surprised that I have so much time in which to speak. I will rattle though my speech, and I apologise to the House if the opening Front-Bench contributions were too long. I, too, would have welcomed more time for the debate.
	I thank hon. Members for making thoughtful contributions, as they always do in such debates. We have covered CFP reform in all its myriad guises, and I welcome the common agreement in the House on the need for radical reform. I reiterate that the UK Government intend to continue to be right at the front end of that reform.
	I welcome the ideas that have been put forward. The common themes that we heard included the need to move away from micro-management-I agree that it is absolutely bizarre that Ministers should sit into the early hours making decisions on twine thickness-and the requirement for fisheries' involvement that is based on good evidence and good science. With the continued support of hon. Members, I hope that we will be successful on some of those matters.
	Many priorities have been suggested for the December Council, just as there were many asks during my earlier meeting with fisheries representatives from the whole of the UK. The EU-Norway negotiations will be important for mackerel, as well as for wider issues. The negotiations will be far more difficult this year, but we will continue to engage and fight hard on behalf of the UK's interests, including the interests of the devolved Administrations.
	We have heard about the importance of the fleet to coastal communities and the divergent nature of our fleet in communities. We have also reflected on the importance of fisheries to processing and ancillary industries.
	I must stress the need to work together. There is a strong and effective working relationship among Ministers in the devolved Administrations and me, as the England and UK Fisheries Minister. When we work together and speak with one voice on CFP reform and other negotiations, the UK's position is stronger. It is important that we recognise that and ensure that we take that approach at all times, as we do.
	Good science and partnerships between science and fisheries are also important. As the weeks and months go by, I hope that we will have more ideas about how we can build on what is already being done well, including in the areas of hon. Members who have spoken. I talk to fishermen, and I sent some a video message in the past few days to congratulate them on the work that they were doing.
	We have heard about the importance of the wide remit for people on the sea, including recreational sea anglers. We have also heard about the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, special areas of conservation and special protection areas, and the way to engage wide interests on the ground, including with regard to fisheries. Discards have also been discussed-we have heard about many issues in the contributions of hon. Members, for which I thank them.
	We have largely sung from the same hymn sheet, but I cannot conclude without drawing attention to several discordant notes-I suspect that we are heading into the party political season-and I must correct some errors that were made. Unfortunately, although he made a good contribution, by and large, all the errors were in the speech by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon).
	The hon. Gentleman was factually incorrect by referring to the environmentally responsible fishing pilot scheme as a stock assessment scheme. The ERF pilot was designed to provide evidence on the environmental and economic impact of segments of the onshore fleet-it was not a stock assessment scheme. It has provided hugely valuable data, and the findings will be published in due course. The scheme was originally meant to run from 6 August 2008 until 15 August 2009. In July, I made the decision to extend the scheme with the existing participants. Fishermen were warned in July, however, that the scheme could close at any time, and we closed it because we had obtained sufficient evidence. The data were being analysed on an ongoing basis, and we knew that the participation catch levels were higher than anticipated. In the interests of sustainable fisheries, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that when a Minister recognises such a thing, he should stop a scheme.
	Let me correct the hon. Gentleman's point about quota. Under the Hague preference, we gave some quota to the under-10 metres and some to the over-10 metres. Under the decommissioning scheme, however, it all went to the under-10s. He seemed to mix up latent capacity and unused quota, which is important for producers' organisations and some of the over-10s. They distribute that, including through swaps to the under-10s, and it is important that there is such flexibility.
	The MMO has been fully engaged, and that process will be a success. The unions regularly come through my door. They will continue to do so, and I would hope that the hon. Gentleman would extend that invitation to them. I must congratulate him on summing up the Government's achievements-
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
	That-
	(1) Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:
	In paragraph (4) the word 'eight' shall be substituted for the word 'thirteen' in line 42 and in paragraph (5) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 44;
	(2) Standing Order No. 90 (Second reading committees) shall have effect for this Session with the following modification, namely:
	In paragraph (2) the word 'fifth' shall be substituted for the word 'eighth' in line 21; and
	(3) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 29 January; 5 and 26 February; 5 and 12 March; 23 and 30 April; and 7 May. -(Mr. Mudie.)

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITIONS

Use of Premises (Essex)

Bob Spink: Residents have a right to enjoy their homes and environment in safety and without fear. It would not be helpful for me to go into too much detail, but sadly an illegal brothel has been established in a decent and respectable area in my constituency.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not in order to go into very much detail if he is to conform to the Standing Orders of the House.

Bob Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that Standing Orders indicate that a Member presenting a petition may speak for a short period, typically one to two minutes, and I do not intend to go further than that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The point is that the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to describe the contents of the petition, rather than make a speech in relation to it.

Bob Spink: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I shall try to do that.
	Fortunately, the police and Mr. Lawman of the council are seeking to deal with the matter, and I congratulate them on their action to support and protect residents. I am grateful, too, to all the residents who have shown that they care about our community by signing the petition, which will enable the authorities to end the abuse, because under section 17 of the relevant Act they need multiple complaints to apply for a court order. The petitioners deserve the support and protection of the House.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Carlton Drive and surrounding areas,
	Declares that a property in Carlton Drive is being used as an illegal brothel under the name A13 Bliss; that the Petitioners are deeply concerned about the impact of this activity in an otherwise quiet and respectable residential area, that they are further concerned about the danger and intimidation this brings to residents and young people in the area and that they welcome the actions of the Council and police to investigate and deal with this matter under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the so called Brothels Act 2007.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons implores the Government to encourage Castle Point Borough Council, Essex Police and HM Revenue and Customs, to take urgent and tough action to immediately end the improper use of the property in this otherwise quiet and respectable residential area and take appropriate action against anyone who is breaking the law.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000441]

Sri Lanka

Dominic Grieve: This is a petition from more than 300 of my constituents from Beaconsfield and other locations, who declare their concern at the plight of more than 280,000 civilians displaced by the fighting in Sri Lanka.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HM Government to press for the implementation of the following: the United Nations, International Red Cross and voluntary agencies must be given full access to care for and protect the civilians in the camps, and then help them to return to their traditional homeland in the north and east; a list of all those still alive and in custody should be published, so that families can stop searching for loved ones who are dead; any who continue to be detained as alleged LTTE combatants must be treated in accordance with the provisions of international law, and urgently given access to legal representation; accountability processes must be established to ensure that international aid is not diverted to purposes other than those for which it was given; UN monitors must be given free access to all parts of the island; there must be a full UN investigation into war crimes committed during the war.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [  The Petition of constituents of Hon. Dominic Grieve MP for Beaconsfield and others,
	 Declares that following the end of hostilities in Sri Lanka as announced by President Mahinda Rajapakse, more than 280,000 Tamil civilians, including at least 50,000 children, remain detained indefinitely in cramped, squalid military run camps in the north of the island in breach of international law; further declares that there is a severe lack of medical and humanitarian aid for the needs of these wounded malnourished and severely traumatised war victims; further declares that with the current flooding, spread of diseases and the onset of the Monsoon rains the conditions in these already dilapidated camps will worsen drastically resulting in further deaths; further declares that the detained Tamil people are being held against their will, without any freedom of movement, with the intention of making these camps permanent; further declares that the traditional lands of these people are being colonised and illegally occupied by the armed forces; further declares that it is suspected that thousands of Tamils who are not accounted for are being detained incommunicado by the Sri Lankan armed forces; further declares that the perpetrators of war crimes and breaches of international law in Sri Lanka remain free from prosecution.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HM Government to press for the implementation of the following: the United Nations, International Red Cross and voluntary agencies must be given full access to care for and protect the civilians in the camps, and then help them to return to their traditional homeland in the north and east; a list of all those still alive and in custody should be published, so that families can stop searching for loved ones who are dead; any who continue to be detained as alleged LTTE combatants must be treated in accordance with the provisions of international law, and urgently given access to legal representation; accountability processes must be established to ensure that international aid is not diverted to purposes other than those for which it was given; UN monitors must be given free access to all parts of the island; there must be a full UN investigation into war crimes committed during the war.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000442]

Badman Report (Birmingham, Yardley)

John Hemming: I was impressed on Saturday by this petition, which came from people who share my concerns about the state wrongly intervening in family life. We may be seeing more such petitions.
	The petition reads:
	To the House of Commons.
	The Petition of persons resident in the Birmingham, Yardley parliamentary constituency,
	Declares that they are concerned about the recommendations of the Badman Report, which suggests closer monitoring of home educators, including a compulsory annual registration scheme and right of access to people's homes for local authority officials; further declares that the Petitioners believe the recommendations are based on a review that was extremely rushed, failed to give due consideration to the evidence, failed to ensure that the data it collected were sufficiently robust, and failed to take proper account of the existing legislative framework.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families either not to bring forward, or to withdraw, proposed legislative measures providing for tighter registration and monitoring of children educated at home in the absence of a thorough independent inquiry into the condition and future of elective home education in England; but instead to take the steps necessary to ensure that the existing Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities are properly implemented, learning from current best practice, in all local authorities in England.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000443]

LLOYDS GROUP (AYLESBURY VALE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Frank Roy.)

David Lidington: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the impact on Aylesbury vale of job losses recently announced by the Lloyds Group.
	The Lloyds Group is by far the biggest private sector employer in my constituency or in the wider Aylesbury vale district, which includes the parliamentary constituency of Mr. Speaker in Buckingham. Last week, Lloyds announced major job losses in Aylesbury. To some extent, this news was not surprising. Ever since Halifax-Bank of Scotland-HBOS-was hit by the credit crisis and forced to merge with Lloyds TSB, staff at the company, along with local business and political leaders, have had to live with uncertainty. It was always clear that that merger would lead to a review at some time of office locations and, on top of that, the impact of what is now the deepest and longest-lasting recession since the second world war has clearly reinforced the pressure on Lloyds to cut costs dramatically.
	Even so, last week's news was shocking. The Lloyds Group currently employs more than 1,000 people in Aylesbury. Between now and April 2011, 810 full-time equivalent jobs will go. Of those posts, 570 will shift as a consequence of a decision by Lloyds to concentrate its operations in Edinburgh and Bristol, and a further 240 will be lost as a result of the decision by Equitable Life to move its contract for back office work from Lloyds to a different contractor, a decision which the chief executive of Equitable Life explained to me was taken because of a very significant saving he will be able to make on behalf of Equitable Life policyholders by that change of contractor.
	When part-time workers are taken into account, the number of people directly affected will be larger than that figure of 810 full-time equivalent posts, and of course there is bound also to be a big knock-on effect on the wider local economy. Small and medium-sized businesses in Aylesbury which supply goods and services to Lloyds or which rely for sales on custom from Lloyds employees, most particularly during the lunchtime, are going to suffer badly.
	In addition, we know that the squeeze on public sector spending already planned for in the Government's published figures, and which will take place irrespective of which party forms the Government after the next election, will lead to additional job losses in the town. More than 30 per cent. of jobs in Aylesbury vale district are in the public sector, mostly with Buckinghamshire county council, Aylesbury Vale district council and Stoke Mandeville hospital. The county council is already planning for about 500 job losses over the next couple of years, and the Buckinghamshire Hospitals Trust, which includes Stoke Mandeville, is implementing a programme of emergency savings to try to stay within its budget for the current financial year.
	Earlier today, representatives of the Buckinghamshire education and learning partnership, which works on behalf of local business and education and training institutions, told me that the combined effect of the job losses at Lloyds and the county council alone would push up the claimant count in Aylesbury by 1.5 per cent. I acknowledge up front that, in spite of that devastating news last week about job losses, the rate of unemployment in Aylesbury, though it has risen sharply during the last year, is below the national average. However, to those employees who are directly affected, and to their families, that will be small comfort. What makes the decision by Lloyds still more worrying is the impact that it will have on plans to increase employment in Aylesbury and, more widely, in the Aylesbury Vale district in response to the Government's plans for significant new housing in the area.
	In 2003, the Government identified Aylesbury vale as part of the Milton Keynes and south midlands growth area. The district has to make provision for just over 27,000 new homes by 2026, and the great majority of that new development will have to be achieved through the expansion of the town of Aylesbury. Ever since the sustainable communities plan was published, Ministers have argued that they want growth involving new homes and new jobs. The current regional plan assumes that, in the case of Aylesbury vale, there should be roughly one new job for each new home built, so a total of 21,000 to 22,000 new jobs will somehow have to be provided.
	In previous Adjournment debates about growth plans for Aylesbury, I have said that even that provision is inadequate, given that in most households these days both the man and the woman work. What is surely clear, however, is that the Government's own declared objective of building a sustainable community is not compatible with development that turns Aylesbury increasingly into a dormitory town, especially given its relatively poor road infrastructure. We are already coping with significant traffic congestion problems, and in at least one location in the town an air quality management zone has been declared, because exhaust pollution breaches what are regarded as safe levels under European law.
	Aylesbury is already a net exporter of labour-to the tune of roughly 20,000 people a day who travel somewhere else in order to work. Historically, its commercial growth has been a lot slower than that which will be needed to deliver the more than 21,000 jobs that the Government envisage in their regional plan. In recent years, the take-up rate of office space in the town of Aylesbury has been less than 5,000 square metres a year, equating roughly to an additional 350 office jobs annually. Even if additional employment in other industrial sectors is added to that office jobs total, the delivery of 21,000 or more new jobs by 2026 implies for the next decade and a half an industrial and commercial premises take-up rate that is way beyond those levels. It is unrealistic to expect that job creation on anything approaching that scale can come from indigenous growth. Rather, we will have to attract inward investment from elsewhere in Britain and from overseas-and on a scale that defies previous experience.
	I wish to make a further point about the local economy. Aylesbury is often seen as linked either to the Thames valley and the M40/M4 corridor area of the south-east economy, or to Milton Keynes-or indeed to both. However, when we analyse the structure of Aylesbury's economy, we find that for a long time it has been less developed and less high-tech than either the Thames valley or Milton Keynes. It is also a town that has only a very small number of big private sector employers. That means that the loss of Lloyds as a major employer will be even more keenly felt.
	One of my fears, which is shared by many local business and political leaders, is that despite the good things we can all point to in what is happening in the Aylesbury economy, most notably the opening of the Peter Jones enterprise centre earlier this year, the impact of Lloyds very largely pulling out of the town will be to discourage other big employers from moving in.
	Locally, Buckinghamshire county council, Aylesbury Vale district council, Aylesbury Vale Advantage- the local delivery vehicle, as the Minister knows-the Buckinghamshire economic and learning partnership and the South East England Development Agency are working together to try to mitigate the impact of the job losses announced last week and to provide help through the recession more generally. However, the Government's decision to designate Aylesbury as an area for significant new housing development means, in my view, that they have a clear responsibility to help.
	I want to list a number of ways in which I believe the Government might be able to offer assistance. I say straight away that I do not expect the Minister to be able to give a definite answer this evening, but I hope that he will undertake to review the situation, to study the menu that I offer him, and perhaps other options, and then to write to me in due course with his detailed response. I accept, too, that there is little spare cash floating around and that much Government money will already have been allocated to particular programmes. I will therefore try to suggest ways in which relatively small sums of money-perhaps tweaks to existing Government programmes-could be effected in ways that would make a significant difference locally.
	First, how do we help the 800-plus people who are going to lose their jobs, many of whom may have worked continuously for Lloyds or for its predecessor companies, HBOS and Equitable Life, for many years and have no recent experience of having to go out and search for work in the labour market? There are simply not sufficient local resources available to deal with the sheer scale of the job losses just announced. I would like the Government to allocate some of the funds already earmarked for the future jobs fund to give those people targeted and specific support to maximise their individual employment potential and make it possible for them to continue to contribute to the local and the national economy. Local organisations estimate that about £200,000 would be sufficient to provide the additional intensive support for those unemployed people that would be needed over the next 18 months.
	Secondly, there are growth area funds. The Government have already budgeted for GAF to help to finance the delivery of homes and jobs in designated growth areas, but so far Aylesbury vale has done badly out of that funding. Like all the other growth areas, Aylesbury vale had a sizeable proportion-just under £2 million-of funding that the Government had provisionally allocated for next year withdrawn by the Department for Communities and Local Government in order to fund the so-called kick-start scheme for housing development. That clawback by the Department represented a reduction of almost half Aylesbury's original GAF budget for the next year and nearly 20 per cent. of the funding allocated over the entire three-year period.
	As if to rub salt in the wound, Aylesbury vale then did not receive any of this funding back through the first round of the kick-start scheme, which was funded out of the money that the Government had decided to claw back. So Aylesbury lost out to other parts of the country, yet still faced and continues to face a major challenge of trying to deliver sustainable housing and employment growth in the current, very difficult economic climate. If all or even part of the GAF funding originally allocated to Aylesbury vale but then clawed back were now restored, those funds could be used to try to bring new jobs to the district.
	Thirdly, poor links to the trunk road network are a major disincentive for employers to locate in or close to the town. Local agencies are currently supporting a bid to the regional infrastructure fund to finance the proposed eastern link road, a development that is essential to Aylesbury's ability to overcome the shortcomings in its transport infrastructure and attract new business. If built, the link not only ought to ease congestion within the town, an important objective in itself, but would unlock greater development potential and encourage more business investment in the Aylesbury area.
	Fourthly, I would like the Government to accept the application made by Aylesbury Vale district council to be one of the pilot areas for the tax increment finance scheme. If they want to demonstrate that they have joined up their programmes to support and assist the growth areas that Ministers themselves have chosen to designate, they should choose Aylesbury as one of the successful pilots.
	Fifthly, the Government have just announced plans to relocate many thousands of civil service jobs to places outside London. Although I believe that the priority in my constituency should be to strengthen private sector investment in Aylesbury, especially given the imbalances in the local economy that I have described, I hope that Ministers will consider the town as a potential destination for any departmental relocations.
	Sixthly and finally, inward investment is essential if Aylesbury is to come near to providing the number of jobs necessary to support the residential development that the Government want. Access to key Government bodies such as UK Trade & Investment, and a readiness by central Government Departments to promote Aylesbury vale and its key commercial development sites, would strengthen the efforts already being made at local and regional level to identify and attract potential new investors.
	I hope that the Minister will understand the gravity of the Lloyds announcement, its impact on the economy of my constituency and the seriousness with which the matter is regarded across party political boundaries in Aylesbury. I hope that the Government will consider seriously the proposals that I and a number of local agencies are making.

Ian Lucas: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on securing this debate on an important subject and on the way in which he has acted as a persuasive advocate on behalf of his community. Many of us in Parliament have of course experienced job losses in our communities during the past 18 months to two years, and they are always profoundly to be regretted. They have a profound effect on people's lives, and each individual is severely affected. He put across very strongly how his community has been affected, and I thank him both for the tone in which he approached the matter and the constructive way in which he made proposals to help his constituency at this difficult time. I sympathise profoundly with his constituents, and I want to do all I can to assist. I shall certainly examine his proposals closely.
	The financial sector has of course been hit very hard indeed by the recession. Many people in it have lost their jobs, and others are still very concerned about their future. The job losses in Aylesbury are a reminder that, for many employees, these are very difficult times.
	The Government have taken action in the past 18 months to avert the collapse of the banks. We wanted to ensure a strong, vibrant financial services sector in the future, with stronger and safer banks that are better able to support the recovery. As the hon. Gentleman said, Lloyds Banking Group, along with other banks, has benefited from a range of taxpayer support. In particular, the Government have a 43 per cent. stake in the bank, resulting from the sector-wide intervention in October 2008. That percentage will be maintained by the Government's subscribing to the Lloyds rights-issue later this month.
	Government support for the banks is not unconditional. We have secured various commitments from Lloyds, and from the Royal Bank of Scotland, which has also been a major beneficiary of taxpayer support. They include commitments to increasing lending to businesses and home owners, to ensuring that customer charges are fair and transparent, and to deferring bonus payments. Of course, I recognise that that action is small consolation to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. He described his constituency as he alone knows it, and he described the importance of the financial sector to his constituency well. It was helpful to listen to his exposition.
	We are of course, doing all we can to assist those who are losing their jobs in the major job loss in the Aylesbury area. It is worth pointing out that the timing of the redundancies will be phased; they will take place from mid-2010 until the end of 2011. In November 2008, we expanded the Jobcentre Plus rapid response service to offer support to every employer proposing 20 or more redundancies. That service can help employers to support their work force in difficult circumstances. Nationally, more than 3,000 employers have used the service since last November, and we have invested £12 million in the service for 2009-10.
	In the south-east, the rapid response service has been extended to cover every person facing redundancy, entitling them to extra support and, in some cases, funding. Jobcentre Plus has been working with the South East England Development Agency, the Learning and Skills Council, the sector skills councils, the Government office and other partners to develop a recovery plan for major redundancies.
	In Aylesbury, I know that SEEDA has already convened a local taskforce to provide assistance and advice for those affected by the Lloyds Banking Group redundancies. SEEDA is working in partnership with Aylesbury Vale district council, Buckinghamshire county council, the local economic and learning partnership, Business Link, the Learning and Skills Council, Lloyds Banking Group itself and, of course, Jobcentre Plus. That taskforce brings together all those national and local agencies, and will put in place a co-ordinated package of support, tailored to suit the needs of the people affected. It will include workshops for all employees, looking at curriculum vitae writing and interview skills, skills checks and job search advice. Given what the hon. Gentleman has said, I am conscious that many of the people affected will not have had to look for a job for a very long time. What is happening will be a profound shock to them, and it is important that they have assistance of the type I have mentioned in finding work.
	We will also provide support for those who may be interested in becoming self-employed, as ever more people are nowadays. As a result of changes in the local economy, areas such as Aylesbury will of course benefit from innovation among their populations. Many of the people who lose their jobs in the redundancy will have advanced skills and will have much to offer, once they have the confidence and the assistance offered by those with specialist advice who will be available to help. The taskforce will also be organising recruitment days with potential employers that offer jobs in similar sectors, as well as offering job-matching with existing companies and working to try to bring new companies to the town.
	Fortunately, Aylesbury has a relatively low level of unemployment-even in the context of Buckinghamshire, but certainly in the context of the national average. That is, I stress again, small consolation to those individuals concerned. I understand that SEEDA has been keeping the hon. Gentleman informed on progress. I am sure that he will keep a close eye on the development agency and on all the other organisations that I mentioned, to ensure that they are providing the type and level of support to which his constituents are entitled.
	Partners in the south-east have a good and strong history of responding quickly and positively to large-scale redundancies. Similar local taskforces were set up to support those affected by job losses at Ford in Southampton and at Vestas on the Isle of Wight. In the first six weeks following the Vestas redundancies, 84 people found new jobs, 94 were in training and 157 had been helped through the action fund. I am sure that the people in Aylesbury will also benefit from the experience that has been built up. Unfortunately, we have had far more job losses than any of us would have liked to have seen over the past two years.
	The withdrawal on such a scale of a flagship company will of course have a significant impact on Aylesbury, as it would on any community, but I am confident that there will be new opportunities in the area. SEEDA is working with the district and county councils to explore and promote opportunities for continued economic growth in the area. That will include providing assistance for local businesses with growth potential and securing new inward investment.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the growth programme in Aylesbury. The plans for housing growth in this and other locations are, of course, long-term. They reflect existing needs for new housing as well as housing needs that will arise in the future, primarily as a result of demographic change. It is all the more important that we plan for the future at these most difficult times, when a significant job loss situation has been created, and that we provide affordable housing in the Aylesbury and Buckinghamshire area. The prosperity and future of the area will depend on growth within the local community and within industry, because growth will provide employment and opportunities and will enable the community to develop in a sustainable way.
	I was very taken by the points that the hon. Gentleman made, and specifically by his constructive suggestions. He kindly indicated at the outset that he did not expect me to give him too many early Christmas boxes at this stage, but I will certainly consider the points he made. Some of them are not my Department's responsibility, but I will certainly relay them to my colleagues and ensure that they consider closely what specific help we can give to the Aylesbury area, in addition to the general help I have already described.
	The situation is, of course, very difficult. I am sure that it is unusual for this scale of job losses to affect the community in the Aylesbury area. I am sure that it is a resilient community and it is well represented by the hon. Gentleman. I will consider closely the constructive proposals that he has made and I will write to him shortly on those matters. I thank him for bringing to the House's attention the position in Aylesbury and I look forward to working with him to try to assist his constituents.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.